Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Landfill Tax

Mr. MacShane: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the environmental impact of the proposed landfill tax; and if he will make a statement. [15487]

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer): The landfill tax is another step towards green taxation. It shifts tax from jobs and resources and has been widely welcomed.

Mr. MacShane: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that the landfill tax at present constituted will penalise the very bodies and companies that are seeking to clear up contaminated land? In my constituency, it will add £20 million to the cost of any efforts made by the local authority to clean contaminated land, and cost hundreds of millions of pounds in the rest of Yorkshire. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the tax will do great damage to British Steel, for example, and other companies that want to clear up contaminated land? It is a tax designed to put money into the Treasury. Will the right hon. Gentleman join me and local authorities, as well as responsible companies, in opposition to the bean-counting twerps at the Treasury and devise a real tax that will stop pollution where it begins rather than where it ends?

Mr. Gummer: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the tax does not put money into the Treasury. It is a tax on landfill that will be recycled. The moneys will be paid out to reduce tax on jobs. The hon. Gentleman knows that to be true. He shows by shaking his head that he does not understand the tax. I am surprised, because there is a landfill tax in Switzerland that works extremely well.

Mr. Atkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the tax, an environmental initiative for which he and I both worked, is yet a further sign of the Government's commitment to environmental matters? Does he agree also that no excuses can or should be accepted from local authorities for not implementing the landfill tax as it is clear that they have the moneys to do so?

Mr. Gummer: My right hon. Friend will be as sorry as I am that the Labour party has shown once again that, although it talks generally about the environment

sometimes—not very often—it is not prepared to make the major changes that are necessary when it comes to precise and practical details. As the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) knows, the concerns about how we should deal with landfill, which is the removal of contamination, are the subject of active discussion. Local authorities have already been able to retain in their baselines the moneys that they used to use for waste responsibilities. Those moneys have been transferred to the Environment Agency.

Mr. Eric Clarke: Is the Secretary of State aware that the tax, especially in the form of the £7 levy, will have a detrimental effect on the coal industry, and particularly on coal-fired stations where fly ash is produced by the burning of coal? At present 50 per cent. of fly ash is recycled. The other 50 per cent., especially in Scotland, is put into lagoons and reclaimed lands in the Forth estuary. It is an asset for the community and not detrimental to it. Is the right hon. Gentleman considering imposing the £2 levy rather than the levy of £7?

Mr. Gummer: It is a useful material and we are trying to promote recycling. That is important. If we are to have green taxes, they should be designed to ensure that we recycle rather than continue with landfill, which is one of the least satisfactory uses of the material to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. That is why environmental groups throughout the country have welcomed the tax change. I am sorry that the Labour party does not support it.

Mr. Devlin: Is it not the case that an amendment that links the concerns of the hon. Members for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) and for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) has been accepted by the Committee that is considering the Finance Bill? Is not the real concern about landfill tax the fly tipping that is engaged in by those who are not prepared to pay for rubbish to be taken to an incinerator or a waste exchange area, which means that material is left on roadsides? Should not we be considering an arrangement for the general public to rid themselves of their rubbish without littering our countryside?

Mr. Gummer: As my hon. Friend says, it is certainly necessary to give the general public more opportunities to be able to get rid of their rubbish. Many local authorities are already doing that. I hope considerably to encourage that approach. Amendments have been accepted by the Committee that is considering the Finance Bill, and they will go some way to meet some of the concerns. As the hon. Member for Rotherham clearly does not understand the way in which the tax will work and fails to appreciate that the Treasury does not gain from it—moneys raised by the tax will be recycled to reduce pressures on jobs—there was no point in supplying him with such details. He has not got that far.

Lappel Bank Case

Mr. Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the Lappel bank case before the European Court of Justice. [15488]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): The United


Kingdom, with the support of France, has argued its case strongly at the European Court of Justice, and we await the Advocate-General's opinion.

Mr. Morgan: I am grateful for that answer, but does the Minister accept that, if anything, the Lappel bank case teaches us that we have a completely unworkable system of environmental protection, because any Government Department can confer strong environmental protection on bird habitats and then unilaterally withdraw it when it feels like it, and that the only remedy for anyone who wants to contest the withdrawal is to go to the European Court of Justice, which takes ages, costs a fortune and has no powers of injunction to stop work in the interim?

Mr. Clappison: I do not accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman's question. Our system is working perfectly well. In the Lappel bank case, while we await the opinion of the Advocate-General, we are mindful of the importance of the port of Sheerness and its continuing viability. On the environmental consequences, the hon. Gentleman should bear it in mind that Lappel bank is only 1 per cent. of the special area of protection in the Medway, which does not contain rare or endangered species. Our system is working well, and the hon. Gentleman would do well to bear that in mind.

Council House Sales

Sir David Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council houses have been sold to sitting tenants in England since May 1979. [15489]

Mr. Gummer: About 1.45 million tenants in England bought their homes between April 1979 and September 1995. At the moment, tenants are still becoming home owners at the rate of 200 a day across Great Britain.

Sir David Knox: How does my right hon. Friend assess the future for potential sales? Will they be direct sales? Does he have any other schemes?

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend will agree that the changes that we have made, which give new opportunities to existing tenants in housing association property and thus ensure that future tenants in new homes will have the right to buy, and which have increased the ways in which tenants can be given a chance to buy their own homes, should mean that we shall continue to enable people to buy their own homes. The public will know that none of those 1.45 million families would have been able to buy their own home had the Labour party been in power, because it tried to stop the sales on every possible occasion.

Mr. Olner: Will the Minister consider seriously the Environment Committee report on housing needs and condemn mortgage lenders who are currently red-lining ex-council properties? The asset of those tenants is continually diminishing. Will he consider the matter with the utmost urgency?

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration condemned such practices in his speech only last Friday.

Town and Village Centres

Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the Government's measures to revitalise town and village centres. [15490]

The Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency (Mr. Robert B. Jones): Through our planning policies, we provide a framework to maintain and increase their vitality and, through specific measures such as the urban design campaign, city challenge and our proposed rate relief scheme for village shops, support local initiatives that benefit the whole community.

Mr. Riddick: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that there is concern among retailers in the towns and villages of my constituency—for example, Holmfirth, Meltham and Slaithwaite—about the difficult trading conditions that they face, which will make it difficult for some of them to survive? I heard only this morning that Lloyds bank plans to close its branch in Marsden. Does he agree that although the Government are not able to force people not to shop elsewhere—in supermarkets, for example—it is important that they should take steps to ensure the continuing vitality of towns and villages in constituencies such as mine?

Mr. Jones: When judging planning applications for new retail development, we shall ensure that local authorities take into account the impact of any new development on such communities and follow our guidance in terms of a hierarchy of suitable sites. At the end of the day, of course, there is much that traders and the communities in which they live can do to patronise these shops and to ensure that local authorities have a properly thought-out strategy for each town, village and city centre.

Mr. Vaz: The truth is that the Government have done their best to destroy town, city and village centres. May I remind the House that it was this Government and these Ministers who allowed hundreds of out-of-town shopping centres to be built all over the country, and to tear the heart out of our towns and villages? When will the Government be prepared to stop using planning policy to destroy city and town centres and use it productively to do what the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) just asked—promote and protect town and village centres?

Mr. Jones: If the hon. Gentleman took a close interest in such matters, he would know that that is precisely how we use the planning system. Nothing has done more to destroy city centres over the years than Labour councils' imposition of massive taxes, which has caused many businesses to move out.

Mr. Mans: Does my hon. Friend agree that there are two ways in which not to revitalise villages and towns? One is to introduce car parking charges, and the other is to insist that large housing developments take place on the edges of villages and towns, in green belts. Those are both policies of Labour-controlled councils in Lancashire.

Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend has hit two nails firmly on the head. First, car parking facilities for shoppers are a


key way to ensure the vitality of town centres. Secondly, as my hon. Friend says, the more housing there is in town and village centres, the less pressure there is on the green belt and the more people there are in the towns to patronise shops.

Local Authority Revenue

Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent discussions he has had with local authority leaders on the level of Government contribution to overall local authority revenue. [15491]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met leaders of the local authority associations on 15 January and on 6 February to discuss a range of issues affecting local government, including the financing of local authority revenue expenditure.

Mr. Pike: Has not Lancashire's education grant been increased by only 1.4 per cent.? That increase is smaller than the increases in standard spending assessment and inflation. Such small increases mean that counties such as Lancashire must either cut other services or increase the council tax.

Sir Paul Beresford: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. Lancashire's SSA has risen by 3.1 per cent., its SSA per head has risen by 2.8 per cent. and its budget has risen by 3.2 per cent. If Labour councillors cannot manage, perhaps they should resign.

Sir Irvine Patnick: When will my hon. Friend take action—

Mr. Pike: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I give notice that I wish to raise the issue to which I have referred on a motion for the Adjournment.

Home Ownership

Mrs. Ann Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his policies for the promotion of home ownership. [15492]

The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration (Mr. David Curry): The Government are fully committed to promoting the continued growth of sustainable home ownership, both by prudent management of the economy and through specific policies to help people to become home owners.

Mrs. Winterton: Given that home ownership is a core value of Conservatism, does my hon. Friend agree that there has never been a better time at which to buy a house, that interest rates are at an historic low and that it makes good sense to invest in new property? Will he ensure that we include in the next Budget, and in the next general election manifesto, firm policy plans to enable more people to buy their homes? Home ownership is very popular, and most families aspire to it.

Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend is right. The relationship between interest rates, earnings and prices is now such

that buying a home is virtually the bargain of the century. The market is clearly going to turn around next year. As for specific help for home buyers, my hon. Friend—who co-chairs the Standing Committee considering the Housing Bill with distinction—will know that the Committee has passed clauses permitting housing association tenants to acquire their properties in some circumstances.

Mr. Sheerman: What are the Government doing about the tens of thousands of people in negative equity or the tens of thousands of people who, spurred on by the Government's propaganda and mishandling of the economy, invested in homes and then lost them again? What will the Government do for them?

Mr. Curry: If the hon. Gentleman, like the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford), had been at the Council for Mortgage Lenders on Friday, he would know that I raised that very issue with some of the lenders. I told them that their policies must be tailored to the new conditions in the economy—in which people have to change jobs and accept other changes—and that we now have sustained low inflation, rather than the rapid inflation to which people became accustomed. The Government's action is concerned with sustaining a very low rate of inflation, decreasing interest rates and, therefore, decreasing mortgage rates, which helps not only people who aspire to own a home but those who have difficulty sustaining the purchase of their home. We will be continuing with that action.

Mr. Marland: Will my hon. Friend reassure the House and all current council house dwellers that, should they wish to purchase their council houses after the next election, under a Conservative Government they will be able to do so? Will he contrast that with the wishy-washy commitments, if any, that we get from Labour Members and the fact that Labour councillors have for a very long time tried to deny council house tenants the right to buy their homes?

Mr. Curry: We shall not merely maintain the policy that allows local authority tenants to buy their homes; we are making it possible for housing association tenants to buy their homes on equivalent terms. That will be an opportunity that has been closed to many, and it is part of the extension of sustainable home ownership to which we are thoroughly committed.

Mr. Raynsford: Why does the Minister not admit that, far from helping home owners, the Government have created the worst crisis for home owners in this country's history? Millions of home owners are caught in negative equity, 1,000 home owners lose their homes through repossession every week and the market is suffering from a deep crisis of confidence. The Minister knows that the Government's policies have been a disaster for home owners. They have betrayed home owners, and home owners are rightly looking to Labour for a solution.

Mr. Curry: There is nothing like the Labour party when it comes to wallowing in other people's problems. The fact is that we still have more people moving into home ownership than are facing difficulties from home ownership. We intend to extend home ownership, which


is part of our policy of achieving a sensible housing market in which home ownership, private renting and social housing have their proper roles to play. The Government have introduced that creative scheme. The Opposition have no creative policies except for the use of capital receipts, but they will not even tell us during what period they will be spent. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will spell at least that out next week.

Urban Design

Mr. Day: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to encourage higher standards of urban design in respect of new developments in towns and villages. [15493]

Mr. Gummer: I take every opportunity to raise the profile of urban design and the quality initiative that the document "Quality in Town and Country" spearheaded. I also launched a national urban design campaign last summer.

Mr. Day: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we have lost much green open space in my constituency of Cheadle, particularly to large out-of-town retail developments? If planning procedures allow such developments—against my will and that of a large percentage of my electorate—would it not be better if they were made more suitable for green, leafy areas, rather than, as at present, the American mid-west?

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend will know that I have sought to insist that the town centre is the most natural place for retail development and to see that the quality of those developments should, like the quality of all developments, improve considerably. I am pleased to say that, although my hon. Friend has in his area the problem he described, he will note in the Henry Square Revival in Ashton-under-Lyne and the Gorse Stacks in Chester real examples of better design because of the Government's encouragement. We shall continue with that.

Mr. Clapham: When promoting urban design, will the Secretary of State consider no build being extended under high-voltage power lines, as happens in many villages in my constituency? Bearing in mind the link between ill health and the electromagnetic field under power lines, will the Minister consider—[HON. MEMBERS: "The microphone is not on."]

Madam Speaker: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has been interrupted. The technicians are aware that the microphone is not working; I can see them working on the problem.

Mr. Clapham: Bearing in mind the link between ill health and the electromagnetic field under power lines, will the Minister consider amending planning law to ensure avenues of no build under such lines?

Mr. Gummer: No, I have no intention of doing that. I have considered the evidence carefully and believe that the hon. Gentleman is asserting as fact a very questionable argument.

Water Prices

Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment by what percentage the price of water for domestic consumers has changed over the past five years; and what assessment he has made of the reasons for the change. [15494]

Mr. Clappison: Average domestic water and sewerage charges have increased by 35 per cent., including inflation, over the past five years. Charges have risen to help pay for the massive modernisation programme which has been necessary to raise water quality and environmental standards.

Sir Teddy Taylor: As the sharp rise in the price of water is so different from the sharp fall in the price of the services provided by almost every other privatised industry—I am thinking of electricity, telecommunications and gas—would not it be helpful to give the public a full explanation of that difference? Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the basic reasons was the previous starvation of investment whereas the industry now has to bear the cost of implementing Euro-directives and the massive cost of removing agricultural chemicals and pesticides from water supplies?

Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend knows that the Government are committed to improving agricultural practices. On the wider issue, however, he is right to make the connection between the need for investment now and the lack of investment in the past. He will be aware that, since privatisation, investment has run at roughly twice the previous level. It is certainly much higher than it was before 1979. Higher investment is necessary to pay for the environmental standards that we wish to implement.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: Does the Minister agree that the problem of the 35 per cent. increase is only compounded by the even greater increase in profits over the past five years? Is not it disgraceful that, for the past two years, investment in the industry has actually fallen, which gives the lie to his claims?

Mr. Clappison: The hon. Lady fails to see the link between profit and investment. Profit is very important for investment, and we want investment to continue so as to provide higher environmental standards, cleaner rivers, beaches and bathing water and high-quality drinking water. The hon. Lady's party would take us back to the bad old days of the Labour Administration when the industry was starved of investment.

Sir Sydney Chapman: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) that the major reason for the increase in water charges is the fact that we have to meet EU directives. Will my hon. Friend confirm that half those directives have nothing to do with health and safety but are concerned only with matters of taste and colour? Even at this late stage in the huge investment programme, will my hon. Friend try to persuade his European ministerial colleagues to get rid of such unnecessary EU directives?

Mr. Clappison: I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that the Government are committed to high


standards of drinking water. Higher environmental standards across the board are the essence of the way in which we impose and interpret those directives. I know that my hon. Friend would wish his constituents in Barnet to have good-quality drinking water standards, just as we would for our constituents.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Minister will appreciate that the figures he cites disguise a wide variation in water prices across the country. Will he explain to those whose bills have doubled, or more, in the south-west—and other areas that have been hit hard—why the Government believe it is appropriate to continue to subsidise the already lower prices in Scotland but refuse any help to those who have been hit in high-paying areas such as the south-west?

Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the particular need for investment in the south-west and the problems along the coast there. He would do well to bear in mind the need for investment arising from the lack of investment in the past. I am sure that he will join me in welcoming the improved environmental standards in the south-west. The hon. Gentleman should study the report issued by the Centre for the Study of Regulated Industries, which shows that the rise in prices in Scotland has been very nearly the same as that in this country.

Mrs. Peacock: I note what my hon. Friend says about investment in the water industry. He knows very well the amount that Yorkshire Water has invested. What does he say, however, to consumers in Yorkshire, given that Yorkshire Water has recently announced a 5.5 per cent. increase in its charges—more than twice the rate of inflation—and said in the same breath that it is not sure that it will be able to supply water to its customers due to possible shortages?

Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend will know that, under the regulator's price structure, prices will be stabilised in Yorkshire and will be much lower in future. Particular problems in Yorkshire have been caused by exceptionally dry weather—[Interruption.] The Government are anxious to ensure that no water supply problems are caused by dry conditions in Yorkshire. Opposition Members who are shouting would do well to remember that, during the drought in Yorkshire last summer, no standpipes were used and there were no rota cuts, unlike what happened in 1976, when there was also dry weather.

Mr. Dobson: Will the Minister confirm that the average price rise hides the fact that, while water prices generally have been pushed up by 80 per cent., charges for metered supplies have come down by 2 per cent. in real terms? First, is not such discrimination against one group of customers unlawful and, secondly, is not it part of the Government's general secret agenda to force or bribe everybody to go on to meters?

Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman is comprehensively wrong. It is a shame that he chooses to rubbish water metering, when it has important benefits for water conservation and the environment. The longer the hon. Gentleman rubbishes water metering, the more he shows that he is not concerned about the environment,

has given no thought to the environmental consequences of water policy and has nothing constructive to say on the subject.

Rural Business

Mrs. Lait: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about his plans to introduce a new rural business use class. [15495]

Sir Paul Beresford: We announced in the rural White Paper our intention of consulting on the possible introduction shortly of a new rural business use class. A consultation paper is in preparation and the intention is to improve the rural economy by giving local planning authorities more confidence to allow appropriate new businesses to set up in the countryside.

Mrs. Lait: That is welcome progress in helping to reduce rural unemployment in areas such as Rother, where it has been far too high for far too long. Does my hon. Friend agree that councillors and planning officials have been the most opposed to successful, small-scale business development? What plans are there to provide training and information for them so that such developments may be encouraged—so that we may have thriving villages and a thriving countryside?

Sir Paul Beresford: My hon. Friend will be aware that, even at its consultancy stage, the White Paper will contain reassurance on exactly the concerns of local authority councillors and planning officials. I am sure that they will grab the opportunity and move with it when it is fully realisable.

Mr. Foulkes: Will the initiative extend to Scotland, Britain's premier rugby nation?

Sir Paul Beresford: I should have thought that, bearing in mind my accent, the hon. Gentleman was taking a big risk talking about rugby—even at Murrayfield. I shall certainly put his point to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who might like to consider it.

Telecommunication Masts

Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he is pursuing to regulate the construction of telecommunication masts in areas of outstanding natural beauty. [15496]

Mr. Robert B. Jones: Except in an emergency, the erection of telecommunication masts in areas of outstanding natural beauty needs planning permission from the local planning authority. Guidance on such applications is set out in the Department's planning policy guidance note 8, which emphasises the need to protect the best and most sensitive environments.

Mr. Jenkin: Can my hon. Friend envisage the great landscape paintings of Constable spiked with telecommunication masts for cellphones? Will he assure me that he will co-ordinate carefully the telephone


companies and the local authority in Dedham vale in my constituency to ensure that masts are not erected in inappropriate and obtrusive places?

Mr. Jones: It is probably just as well that my hon. Friend mentioned Constable, rather than some modern painters whose works already look as if they have telecommunication masts all over them. I certainly accept what he said about the need for proper co-ordination between operators and local planning authorities. After all, the purpose of preliminary notification is to enable authorities to pick out plans for sensitive sites and to ensure that full planning applications are required for them.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is no earthly use his governing telecommunication poles unless he also governs electricity pylons? Will he ensure that in areas of outstanding natural beauty such as the Forest of Bowland, supplies are routed underground whenever possible?

Mr. Jones: I understand my hon. Friend's point, and I shall certainly think about what might be done in that regard.

Mr. Miller: It is good to hear that the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) is sometimes a convert to the need for regulation. What discussions has the Minister had with the Radio Authority and network planners? It is no good dealing with the issue piecemeal. We need a strategic plan in place, and his Department should take a lead role in that respect, ensuring that the proper infrastructure is there and that the environment is protected in the way described by the hon. Member for Colchester, North.

Mr. Jones: The whole point of calling operators and local authorities together is to ensure proper co-ordination. In trying to promote good practice, we shall certainly take into account the concerns that many hon. Members have expressed.

Energy Conservation

Ms Ruddock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received regarding domestic energy conservation measures. [15497]

Mr. Robert B. Jones: We have recently widened the formal arrangements for dialogue between the energy efficiency industry and Ministers, and I met representatives of the industry on 20 February. We have received to date 119 responses to our consultation on guidance to the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995. We have also received recent representations on our successful home energy efficiency scheme.

Ms Ruddock: How can the Government still claim to be in favour of sustainable development when they have cut by one third the modest home energy insulation programme, which conserves energy and reduces CO, emissions? Is he aware that the number of backlog applications from people who are poor, old and cold is approaching 250,000, and that 1,500 jobs will be lost

because of the cut made by the Secretary of State? Will the Minister now reinstate that £31 million, or does he say one thing and do another?

Mr. Jones: If anyone said one thing and did another it is the hon. Lady, because although she is fond of the scheme now, under the Labour Government there was no such support for energy conservation. Judging by what she says, I suspect that she would take an axe to the scheme even now. I have explained to the House several times that £30 million was added to the budget for the scheme in anticipation of the second stage of VAT. That was voted down by the House, so of course the VAT compensation package also fell.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my hon. Friend confirm that home energy efficiency schemes save individual households as much as 33⅓ per cent. on their fuel bills? Would it not be a long-term investment of the soundest kind, both for the nation and for the individual, if the scheme were further promoted as soon as it is possible to do so?

Mr. Jones: Indeed, my hon. Friend is right—and of course, even with the changes that we have made, more people will benefit. Those who do not qualify for free fitting of insulation will receive a 25 per cent. discount, which is a substantial incentive for people to adopt such measures in their homes.

Mr. Dafis: The wreck of the Sea Empress has many lessons to teach us, one of which is that we must reduce our dependence on burning fossil fuels. Is not energy efficiency the first priority? How can the Government claim to be serious about the matter when they are cutting the home energy efficiency scheme budget by 30 per cent., and when the Energy Saving Trust will have to make do with £25 million for two years rather than the £350 million that it expected? Is that not a terrible indictment of the Government's lack of commitment and seriousness on the matter?

Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman is certainly right that energy conservation is extremely important in tackling environmental problems, and it is also one of the most cost-effective ways of doing so. If I had to name the worst enemy of progress, it would be the complacency of the British public, and that is difficult to address.

Environment Agency

Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessments have been made of the impact that the new United Kingdom Environment Agency will have on the cost of running small businesses. [15499]

Mr. Clappison: Establishing the new Environment Agency will help all businesses by reducing the number of regulators with which they have to deal.

Mr. Steen: As the Environment Agency has the power to introduce new self-financing regulations, what will the Government do to protect the 4 million small firms that will be the victims of rampant and over-zealous officialdom? What is needed is a fast-track approach on


appeal. Can something be done to reduce the impact on small firms of over-zealous officials who constantly want to gold-plate every rule and regulation that comes out of this place?

Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend is a zealous campaigner on behalf of deregulation, and I hope that he will welcome this as a deregulatory measure that will help business by providing a one-stop shop that can meet its needs. I hope that he will join the warm welcome that has been given to the new agency by the CBI and other representatives of business, including the Advisory Council for Business and the Environment. We will listen carefully to opinions as the agency progresses, but it will be a help to business and it will be deregulatory.

Mr. Bennett: Will the Minister confirm that high environmental standards are extremely good not only for people but for jobs? In meeting those high standards, many small firms have been able to develop a market both at home and abroad. Should we not be doing everything possible to encourage high environmental standards and the jobs that go with them?

Mr. Clappison: Yes, the hon. Gentleman is right. High environmental standards help businesses both large and small. For our part, the Government are prepared to give plaudits to businesses that are successful in winning environmental exports. We are interested in a positive environmental policy that benefits business and the environment. We wait to hear the Opposition's policies—so far, we have heard absolutely nothing.

Local Authority Services

Sir Fergus Montgomery: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to meet representatives of the GMB to discuss the provision of local authority services. [15500]

Mr. Gummer: None.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the General Municipal Boilermakers Union has waged a sustained campaign against compulsory competitive tendering? Does he further agree that the fact that that union is one of the paymasters of the Labour party should strike terror into the heart of every council tax payer in the country?

Mr. Gummer: There is no doubt that the Labour party in local government is much more interested in the dictates of the unions that represent local government workers than in the needs of the community of electors. There have been recent examples of that union attempting to stop contracting out to protect its closed-shop practices, and there are other similar examples all over the country. The union is supported by the Labour party—and by the Labour leadership—because it puts money into Labour's pockets.

Mr. Betts: When the Minister meets representatives of the union to talk about CCT, will he discuss the waste of money on housing management CCT, particularly in the city of Sheffield? In Sheffield, the authority had to spend £900,000 and not one firm tendered for the work in

question. The last firm to withdraw said that it would not bid because it could not improve on the services provided by Sheffield city council. Is it not time that the Minister allowed local authorities to spend money on providing houses for people in need, rather than wasting money on the outdated dogma that he espouses?

Mr. Gummer: All over the country, tenants have found that management has improved, even where they have not gone over to private enterprise, because for the first time, owing to CCT, local authorities are asking them what they want. The right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and the Labour party hate CCT as it means that their paymasters have to compete for jobs instead of taking them from the local authorities run by him and his lackeys.

Air Quality

Dr. Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent discussions he has had with Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution regarding air quality. [15501]

Mr. Clappison: My ministerial colleagues and I regularly meet officers of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution to discuss issues of importance regarding air quality.

Dr. Spink: I welcome the new duty that is to be placed on local authorities to assess air quality and make improvement plans. I invite my hon. Friend to visit Castle Point to encourage the local borough council to provide additional air quality monitoring equipment in Benfleet, so that a better balance of air quality monitoring may be achieved in Castle Point.

Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend's point is well made. Last year, under the Environment Act 1995, the greatest progress towards achieving clean air was made since the Clean Air Act 1956. Local authorities have an important part to play in that strategy. I know that my hon. Friend will take a close interest in the progress made at Benfleet and the rest of the country towards the higher environmental standards, including clean air, that the Government seek.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Ms Eagle: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 February.[15516]

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my meetings in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Ms Eagle: Will the Prime Minister explain to the House whether he knew of the £6.2 million rescue package put together by ex-Tory Cabinet Minister Lord Younger last October to save the hon. Member for


Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) from being disqualified as a Member of Parliament? Did the Prime Minister approve of the deal?

The Prime Minister: I have to say to the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] I have to say to the hon. Lady—forgive me for that slip—that that is not a matter for me, and it was not a matter of which I was aware.

Mr. Pickles: In his busy schedule, has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to study the book by the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson)? What lessons does he draw from it for his own Government—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is asking a question about lessons to be drawn by the Government and hon. Members should listen.

Mr. Pickles: May I draw to my right hon. Friend's attention the suggestion in the book that, under a Labour Government, each newly married couple would receive £5,000? Is he aware that the last time that that proposal was seriously made was in Germany under the Third Reich? Does he agree that, in seeking a role model for his own leader, the hon. Gentleman has bypassed domestic role models and seeks the concept of "Ein Reich, ein Volk, ein Führer"?

The Prime Minister: I have not read the book, but it clearly sounds an extremely good buy, even if I have to purchase it myself. I am not sure that the book will do a good deal of good for the hon. Gentleman who wrote it. If he has the influence on Labour party policy that many of us believe, I hope that everybody will take the opportunity of reading the book.

Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister knows that we have supported the Government wholeheartedly in the peace process and will continue to do so. In view of the damaging speculation, will he clarify whether any deal was offered to the Government last night, as has been suggested?

The Prime Minister: I made it clear last night—and I have made it clear on earlier occasions—that I have no intention of doing any deal with any party on any occasion if the price of that deal is any given action by the Government in relation to the Northern Ireland peace process. I appreciate the support that I have had, across the House, on that process. To many Members of the House, the process has been seen as being above politics in many ways, which I believe is right. I am not in the market for deals now or in the future, and I think that every hon. Member is aware of that.

Mr. Blair: I am grateful for that reply. I hope that the Prime Minister will, therefore, deplore any briefing that was given last night about deals being offered to the Government. Does he agree that the issue of Northern Ireland and other issues of intense party controversy are best kept entirely separate in future?

The Prime Minister: I entirely agree that those matters are separate and, as I said a moment ago, there are no deals and there will be no deals, and I think everyone is aware of that.

Mr. Skinner: The DUP?

The Prime Minister: There is no deal with any political party in the House—not with the Democratic Unionist party, not with the Ulster Unionists, not with the Social Democratic and Labour party. No deal—not now, not yesterday, not tomorrow, not at all—on this process.

Mr. John Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend continue to give priority to increasing the number of police officers available for beat duty, especially in rural areas? Does he agree that those officers should be full time, that the fight against crime requires total dedication and commitment from our police and that part-time officers are no substitute?

The Prime Minister: s: I agree with my hon. Friend about the tremendous reassurance that is given to people by seeing police officers on the beat. He will be aware that we have provided funding in this year's public expenditure round that gives chief constables the resources to put a further 5,000 police officers on the beat.
Having said that, I also believe that those who serve part time in the police force do a very good service for their community, as do special constables. My hon. Friend is entirely right, however, that the public feel deeply reassured by seeing more full-time, fully trained police officers on the beat. That is what we want; we have provided resources to obtain it.

Mr. Ashdown: On GMTV on Sunday, the Defence Secretary said that he believed that a European single currency in Europe is very likely. Does the Prime Minister agree?

The Prime Minister: May I, first, in a spirit of cross-party good will, wish the right hon. Gentleman a happy birthday? I cannot promise that this good will will always last.
I think that many countries in Europe believe that a single currency would be good for Europe and that it will take place: it may, at some stage in the future. I believe that the time scales currently set out cannot safely be met.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: When my right hon. Friend goes to the intergovernmental conference, will he ask his Spanish counterpart how he explains to the young people of Spain, one third of whom are unemployed, why their jobs should be sacrificed on the altar of the social chapter?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend directs that question especially at my Spanish colleague, but it might equally be directed at several of my colleagues elsewhere in Europe. Throughout Europe, countries that have signed the social chapter and that have many social provisions that would be included in the social chapter, were this country foolish enough to sign it, have higher unemployment, including youth unemployment, than we have in this country—and, in many cases, far higher unemployment. That is why we believe that it would be quite wrong, in the interests not only of competitiveness but of having people in work, especially young people, to


sign it. We will not, and it is one of the dividing lines between the policy of the Government and that of the principal Opposition parties.

Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 February. [15517]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Michie: Does the Prime Minister think it is right that last night's vote on the conduct of two Ministers was won only because the two Ministers concerned decided to vote to exonerate themselves?

The Prime Minister: I know that the hon. Gentleman has always taken a great interest in matters relating to Iraq. He demanded an immediate ceasefire and peace conference before Saddam Hussein had been defeated in the war, so he takes a great interest in this matter.
If the Government had been defeated by one or two votes last night, the hon. Gentleman would have said, "Everything is proved; all must change." Unfortunately for him, the House did not vote to defeat the Government last night. If he reads the debate that took place in the House of Lords—where perhaps a more dispassionate view was taken on many issues—he will see that five Law Lords said unequivocally that they agreed with the legal advice given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General.
On that basis, I look forward to hearing the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) withdraw the remarks that he has made repeatedly in the past three years. Until he does so, the Government will not be able to take seriously a single word that he utters.

Sir Peter Hordern: Will my right hon. Friend consider publishing a White Paper giving the history of defence equipment sales over the past 30 years or so? Is it not correct that the first super salesman at the Ministry of Defence was Mr. Ray Brown, who was appointed by Lord Healey? Did not Lord Callaghan, as Prime Minister, introduce the Chevaline missile without telling half of his Cabinet or the House? He would certainly never have told the Leader of the Opposition or the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who were members of CND.

The Prime Minister: It is just possible that the reason why he would not tell them was given by my right hon. Friend at the end of his remarks. What happened under previous Governments is a matter of record. It is also a matter of record that this Government sold no hard armaments to Iraq and that the previous Labour Government provided many to Argentina. That is a matter of record, not speculation.

Ms Roseanna Cunningham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 February. [15518]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Ms Cunningham: I wonder whether the Prime Minister noticed the demonstration that took place in

Edinburgh on Saturday against swingeing Government education cuts. Some 40,000 people—parents, teachers and children—marched in protest against those cuts. That is the equivalent of about 500,000 people marching on the streets of London. Is the Prime Minister aware that his Minister at the Scottish Office said that he would have joined the demonstration if he had been in Edinburgh? If the Prime Minister had been in Scotland at the weekend, would he have joined the demonstration also—bearing it in mind that the slashing of local government budgets means that he would not be guaranteed police protection?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady knows that more resources are made available year after year for education in all parts of the United Kingdom. She knows also that the proportion of public expenditure per head of population throughout Scotland is far higher than that throughout the whole of England and Wales. It is only smaller than that in Northern Ireland, where very special circumstances prevail. Of course, the hon. Lady is also in favour of an extra tax in order to provide more money and an extra imposition of £6 per week for every family in Scotland as a result of policies that she supports.

Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 February. [15519]

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Whittingdale: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the ending of the IRA ceasefire makes it even more important that the prevention of terrorism Act be renewed? Does he agree that that measure should be supported by all parties in the House and that to abstain, rather than to vote against it—which now appears to be the policy of the Labour party—is not sufficient and will do nothing to help in the war against terrorism?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the Labour party for the bipartisan approach that it has adopted: I repeat that point yet again. I was very pleased to hear from the shadow Home Secretary that the Opposition do not intend to oppose the Bill. I hope that, on reflection, they will be prepared to go a little further and support us on that Bill. It would be helpful were the Opposition to do so, but that is a matter that they must consider. I can say only that, on that Bill, I would especially welcome their support in the Lobby.

Dr. Wright: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 February. [15520]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Dr. Wright: After yesterday's events, what advice would the Prime Minister give to a civil servant who is asked by a Minister consistently, deliberately and designedly to mislead the House of Commons?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not the case and that there is a code of conduct for civil servants, which they follow. That has been, is and will continue to be the case.

Ministerial Visits

Mr. Wilkinson: To ask the Prime Minister when he last visited the Ruislip-Northwood parliamentary constituency. [15522]

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Wilkinson: May I assume from that reply that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is referring to his last visit to Royal Air Force Northolt in my constituency?

On that occasion, he may have climbed out to the south-west over pleasant, open countryside and green belt. Will he ensure that his Government stick to the excellent sentiments expressed by him and the leaders of the Labour and Liberal parties in their letter to The Times on 9 February, in which they called for the preservation of the countryside?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, we have recently produced a White Paper on rural affairs as well and our concern for the countryside has not lately arrived, but has been a party concern for many years. That remains the case.

Thameslink 2000

The Secretary of State for Transport (Sir George Young): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Thameslink 2000 project.
Thameslink services, introduced in 1988, currently provide rail links between north and south London through the City. Capacity is limited by the nature of the infrastructure, especially bottlenecks around London Bridge, which means that, at present, no more than six trains per hour in each direction can be accommodated. The Thameslink 2000 project will provide additional track and station capacity for those cross-London services.
The centrepiece will be a new low-level station at St. Pancras adjoining the channel tunnel rail link terminal. In addition, there will be two new rail flyovers at New Cross Gate and Bermondsey, an extra platform and track at London Bridge, additional tracks through Borough Market, rebuilding works at Blackfriars and Farringdon, and a new connection to the east coast main line north of King's Cross.
The project will quadruple capacity on the existing route from six to 24 trains per hour in each direction. By strengthening the link between the rail network north and south of London, it will provide significant new opportunities for services from points as far afield as Brighton, Eastbourne and Bognor Regis in the south, to Bedford, Cambridge and Peterborough in the north. It will enhance access links to both Gatwick and Stansted airports.
The project will make it easier for passengers to travel by rail to and from the channel tunnel rail link terminal at St. Pancras, and it will relieve road congestion in London. The project's estimated total cost is about £650 million, and the analysis of its costs and benefits shows that it offers excellent value for money, with a benefit-cost ratio of nearly 3:1.
The construction of the channel tunnel rail link terminal at St. Pancras provides a unique opportunity to take forward Thameslink 2000 in parallel. The Government have therefore decided that the successful bidder for the CTRL project should provide the main station structure for Thameslink 2000 and the link to the Great Northern line. We will make available sufficient funding to cover the cost of those works. Railtrack—once in the private sector—will undertake the remaining infrastructure works, including the fitting out of the station.
In addition, the franchising director has negotiated terms with Railtrack that provide Railtrack with the necessary assurance of funding for the additional services provided by Thameslink 2000. Because of the additional revenue generated by the services, it is expected that the effects on franchise operators of the additional services will be broadly neutral.
The cost of the Government's contribution towards the capital costs of the project will depend on the outcome of the CTRL competition, but I expect it to be around £100 million out of the total capital cost of £650 million. With joint funding, and Railtrack and the CTRL promoter taking construction risk, this will be an excellent example of the private and public sectors combining to take forward a major investment project.
The Government will also take Railtrack's need to fund Thameslink 2000 into account in decisions on Railtrack's capital structure for flotation. I am in no doubt that prospective investors in Railtrack will welcome this commitment to Thameslink 2000.
On current plans, Thameslink 2000 services can be expected to start within six years. The precise timing will depend on progress on the CTRL—on which I hope to make a statement shortly—and on the time taken for Railtrack to secure the necessary authorisation for the works under the Transport and Works Act 1992.
The Government remain committed to the progressive, strategic enhancement of the capital's transport infrastructure. Work on the Jubilee line extension is in full swing. Today's announcement provides a green light for Thameslink 2000. Because of the timing considerations resulting from the interaction with the CTRL, Thameslink will now precede work on the crossrail project for enhancing capacity on east-west, cross-London routes. Thameslink 2000 will be a valuable addition to London's infrastructure—complementing the channel tunnel rail link, providing new service opportunities for train operators, and providing additional capacity for commuters into London.
The Government's support for Thameslink is good news for London, but not for London alone; rail users across the south-east will benefit from the increased capacity that it provides. The project is clear evidence of the capacity of a railway firmly rooted in the private sector to take forward major investment projects. Far from fragmenting the railway, we are adding extra capacity and providing a better integrated network. Today's announcement demonstrates our commitment to a dynamic, expanding railway for the next century.

Ms Clare Short: The Labour party greatly welcomes the Secretary of State's long-overdue announcement of the further development of Thameslink—which will, among other things, significantly enhance train capacity north-south across London and improve capacity at Charing Cross, which currently suffers many hold-ups. As the right hon. Gentleman said, Thameslink 2000 will also provide capacity at St. Pancras to deal with passengers arriving on the channel tunnel rail link. That, of course, explains the timing of the announcement, because the Secretary of State will shortly announce the award of the drastically delayed channel tunnel rail link project.
Given that motivation, will the Secretary of State tell the House clearly and exactly when work will start on this project? Does the Secretary of State agree that it is deeply regrettable that the project has been so badly delayed as a result of rail privatisation?

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): Nonsense.

Ms Short: That is not nonsense—it is absolutely true. The Minister should not intervene in that way.
Does the Secretary of State agree that it is even more regrettable that the project will cost the taxpayer a massively increased amount of money as a result of rail privatisation? [Laughter.] Hon. Members should not laugh—that is true. That is their Government's policy.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the old Greater London council funded the original British Rail feasibility study, which brought back into use a small section of railway south of Farringdon that had not been used for passenger services since the first world war, allowing the north-south connection to be made? Conservative Members might wish to know that was achieved by the GLC and British Rail.
Is the Secretary of State aware that British Rail established the Bedford-Brighton service, which runs every 15 minutes, in 1988—and that British Rail had plans to expand the system, in the way that the right hon. Gentleman has announced today, from 1990? British Rail had a Bill ready in 1991, but the Department of Transport would not allow the Bill to be deposited. Is the Secretary of State also aware that, following the 1992 election, everything was subsumed in the preparation for privatisation, and this valuable project was further delayed?
Is the Secretary of State aware that, even more tragically, if the project had gone forward in 1991, it would not only be up and running now, but would be largely paid for, since it is a project that would have been self-financing under the old British Rail system? I understand that, under the privatisation structure, it has been more difficult and expensive for the Secretary of State to carry the project forward, because he has had to arrange further funding for the franchising director to pay extra leasing charges to the rolling stock companies and extra track access charges to Railtrack. I also understand that the Secretary of State must have faced difficulties in persuading the Treasury to release much larger amounts of taxpayers' money than would have been necessary to take the project forward in 1991.
Will the Secretary of State admit that the project clearly demonstrates the folly of rail privatisation? The Thameslink project has been delayed by at least five years, and will cost the taxpayer much more because of privatisation. Even at this late stage, will the Secretary of State learn the folly of his ways and agree to halt the process of rail privatisation? It is holding back investment and costing the taxpayer more, as the Thameslink project clearly demonstrates.

Sir George Young: It would be churlish of me not to welcome the remarks welcoming my announcement that the hon. Lady made at the beginning of her question, but, with respect, she has totally missed the point. It is precisely because we are privatising Railtrack that we can make progress with the capital investment without the need to impose extra obligations on the taxpayer or to borrow more money.
The hon. Lady would be unable to make the statement that I have just made, because she would not proceed with the privatisation of Railtrack. The hon. Lady is not allowed to make any public expenditure commitments, and she could not have made the statement that I have just made because, under a nationalised Railtrack, it would cost extra money. It is because we are privatising Railtrack that we can make faster progress with the project than the Labour party could.
On the hon. Lady's more specific questions, I made it clear in my statement that there will not be any impact on the franchising director's budget. The effect will be

neutral, because the additional revenues generated by the capital investment will remove the need for subsidy. On the question of progress, I said that we hoped the project would be up and running within six years. I hope that Railtrack will proceed with the Transport and Works Act 1992 process towards the end of the year.

Mr. Peter Brooke: Given that a recent comparative study of European capitals put London in first place both for international access and for access within the city, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend on today's announcement? May I press him on the timing of a further statement about crossrail?

Sir George Young: As I implied in my statement, I hope to make a statement shortly about the progress that we are making with the channel tunnel rail link, but at this stage I cannot go any further in answer to my right hon. Friend's request.

Mr. David Chidgey: We welcome the Secretary of State's announcement about the progress—at last—of Thameslink, although we have some reservations about the routeing through London Bridge, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is somewhat concerned.
Will the Secretary of State tell us his views on the effect of linking the Thameslink project with the channel tunnel rail link, because that could be a recipe for further delay? Will the Secretary of State give an assurance today that the Thameslink projects can be carried out as advance works for the channel tunnel rail link works? That is a very important point. I am equally concerned that it now appears that crossrail will be delayed until after Thameslink and the channel tunnel rail link are in place. Is that so?
Finally, will the Secretary of State give an assurance that provision will be made for an interchange at Farringdon to connect Thameslink with crossrail? That is a very important point for overall access to the system.

Sir George Young: On the first question, there have been informal consultations with the London boroughs involved, and they have given a general welcome to what is planned, but they have reserved their position under the Transport and Works Act 1992. That process will give the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and others an opportunity to make their points to the inspector about the impact of the works on specific buildings and on the environment.
As for the CTRL, the box required for the station for Thameslink 2000 is an integral part of the St. Pancras tunnel, and the works will proceed in parallel.
I owe my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) a response on crossrail. As I said in my statement, I expect crossrail to come after the Jubilee line extension and Thameslink 2000. That is a sensible sequence; I am sure that the House will recognise that we cannot do all these major projects at the same time.
The Farringdon interchange will be a matter for crossrail when that project begins.

Sir Sydney Chapman: I had the responsibility—nay, the privilege—as a Back Bencher, of


introducing the original Thameslink Bill—the British Rail (London) Bill—to the House as opposed private business. I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, which is, in effect, a mark 2 development of that original project. Will he confirm that this project will be a boon not just for all Londoners but for many people wanting to cross London from one side to the other? Of all the projects brought before this House, this must be the ideal one for employing private finance.

Sir George Young: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's pioneering work in promoting legislation in earlier Parliaments which assisted the development of the railways. When he joined the Government, I inherited from him a private Bill dealing with King's Cross, which I then had the privilege of promoting.
My hon. Friend is right to point out that the benefits go far wider than Londoners alone. Those who want to travel through London will benefit enormously from the strengthening of the links between the rail network to the north and south of London. My hon. Friend is quite right to stand back and take a strategic view of my announcement.

Ms Glenda Jackson: I declare an interest as a Member sponsored by the rail drivers' union, ASLEF. I welcome the Government's long-awaited decision on the project; but does not Railtrack's financial investment depend on the Government wiping out part of Railtrack's outstanding debt? Far from being rooted firmly in the private sector, will not the bulk of the money for the project come from the public sector—although such profits as are made, if the Government do not rethink rail privatisation, will go into private pockets?

Sir George Young: It would be churlish of me not to thank the hon. Lady for welcoming the project. I am delighted that ASLEF may also support it. The figures I quoted show that the Government are making a modest contribution: £100 million out of £650 million. As I said in the statement, we shall take account of Thameslink 2000 when setting the capital structure for Railtrack, but I expect that Railtrack with Thameslink will be a more attractive investment for investors, because it offers the potential for growth.

Sir John Stanley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituents and I will warmly welcome today's announcement, providing that it benefits my constituency as well as other parts of the south-east? Is he further aware that the Thameslink services extend at the moment along the Kent coast line only as far as Sevenoaks? Can he assure me that, as a result of today's important announcement, Thameslink services can be extended along the Maidstone East line and through Tonbridge along the Kent coast line as well?

Sir George Young: The answer to my right hon. Friend's last point is yes. A number of train operators will be looking to offer additional services as a result of the expansion of capacity.
The announcement will certainly be of benefit to Kent commuters going to Charing Cross, because it increases capacity around Borough Market, where there is often

congestion. Extra provision for Thameslink traffic will ease the flow of Kent commuter traffic into Charing Cross.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the Secretary of State agree that there is a welcome for this announcement, in principle, on both sides of the House? That welcome, however, is qualified, because there is little in it that could not have been done some 10 years ago. The right hon. Gentleman has merely announced linkages and an enhancement of the current service.
Does the Secretary of State agree that a drawback of Thameslink 2000 is the lack of an interchange with the Central line, which is important pending the east-west opening of crossrail? Would it not be better to look at the possibility of an interchange in the Snow Hill area—there is none at the moment—to make the service of even greater use?

Sir George Young: I should like to reflect on the hon. Gentleman's last point. He is right, in that I have detected a broad welcome for my announcement, although there has been some carping criticism from Opposition Members about the Government's investment in London Transport. It is worth putting on record the fact that total investment by London Transport in the current year is forecast to be about £1 billion, which is four times as great in real terms as in 1979.

Sir Michael Grylls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his announcement is yet another example—no doubt others will follow—of removing the dead hand of nationalisation from the railway network, and enabling private sector capital to come forward to provide important and badly needed infrastructure?
Will my right hon. Friend be a little kind to the Opposition, who are in a difficult position? They bitterly fought the privatisation of the railways, and therefore cannot welcome something that they would have welcomed had the railways still been nationalised.

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is right. A dilemma confronts the Labour party. Many of the projects to which my hon. Friend has alluded are possible only because we have privatised nationalised industries. Without embracing the Government's approach, the Opposition would not be able to make progress with projects such as the one that I have announced, without increasing either borrowing or taxation.
My hon. Friend rightly says that several projects in London are being taken forward under the private finance initiative. There is the Lewisham extension of the docklands light railway. Other examples are the Heathrow express, Northern line trains and the Jubilee line extension. All these imaginative partnerships between the public and private sectors have been taken forward by a Conservative Government.

Mr. Tony Banks: May I also welcome the Secretary of State's announcement, and remind him that the GLC came up with the proposal 15 years ago? It is a pity that crossrail has been put on the back burner, as it were. Crossrail would be far more significant to London than a developer-led Jubilee line extension.
Is any new rolling stock involved in the Secretary of State's announcement? If so, where will it come from? When will the right hon. Gentleman make an announcement about the channel tunnel rail link?

Sir George Young: There is no question of crossrail being cancelled. It is a project to which we are committed. If the hon. Gentleman considers publications such as those produced by London First, he will note the recognition that there must be a sequence of major projects. That is exactly what we are doing. We have the Jubilee line extension. We shall then implement the project that I have announced. Crossrail can take its place after that.
Most sensible commentators recognise that there is a limit to the number of major transport infrastructure projects that London can cope with at any one time. It may be that the GLC thought of the project that I have announced. It thought of quite a lot of things, but it did not always find the resources with which to take them forward.
I hope that there will be additional investment in rolling stock to provide the additional services that will be made possible by Thameslink 2000. That will be a matter for the train operating companies as they negotiate with the franchising director to introduce the extra services that they will want to provide as the project comes to fruition.

Mr. John Carlisle: My right hon. Friend has said that existing links between Stansted and Gatwick are to be improved. Rather sadly, he failed to mention that most excellent of all airports, Luton, where, as he will know, a new project is being formulated that will bring about a new rail link between the town and the airport. Perhaps he will tell me whether any funds might be directed to that quarter. If not, perhaps he will tell me what plans he has for the new airport link.

Sir George Young: I recently spent a morning at Luton airport, when I was informed about the ambitions that the airport company has to build an additional station closer to the airport than the existing one. I was told also of the company's plans to improve links between the airport and the station. That is something that my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London has much in mind as he considers the transport supplementary grant that is available to Luton each year. Within the resources that may be available, we shall do what we can to assist the imaginative project to which my hon. Friend has referred.

Mr. Jim Dowd: Although I welcome the general thrust of the proposal, is the Secretary of State able to assure people in inner south-east London especially that due consideration will be given to stations along the lines being served by Thameslink being used to provide access to the service? The Thameslink line to Sevenoaks was extremely valuable, and extremely well used. Unfortunately, it had to be withdrawn. That meant that people in inner south-east London had no access to the benefits of Thameslink.

Sir George Young: That was a positive contribution, and I shall see whether we can take that forward with the train operating companies, which will be responsible for service provision.

Sir Peter Fry: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, on behalf of my constituents, who will find it much easier to reach more parts of London and the south of England more quickly. They will, however, be able to take the greatest advantage of the new development only if there are adequate connections, not just from Wellingborough station but from Kettering and Market Harborough into Bedford. In view of the forthcoming privatisation of the midland main line, will my right hon. Friend please bear that in mind, and ensure that my constituents can take maximum advantage of his announcement?

Sir George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. This picks up a point made by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd). Removing the bottleneck between the north and the south of London will make it possible to provide services over and above those currently on offer. I expect that the market will respond to that, and that it will then be possible to undertake journeys that simply cannot be made at the moment. That will increase the demand for rail services, which is what every hon. Member would like to see.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the Secretary of State agree that this project, like many others, is connected to the channel tunnel project? Does he further agree that the channel tunnel project is up to the neck in debt, and that few people, it seems, are anxious to bail it out? Will he state on behalf of the Government that under no circumstances will the Tory Government take part in the bailing out of the channel tunnel experiment? If the Tory Government will not do that, is he going to call on his friend, Sir George Younger, other Tory ex-Members of Parliament and banks, and have a Bromsgrove bail-out system?

Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that there is a legislative prohibition on the Government giving assistance to Eurotunnel. It is worth pointing out that it was a Labour Government who cancelled a publicly funded channel tunnel project; it was a Conservative Government who managed to get it built, through private enterprise.

Mr. David Congdon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, for people south of the river, in places such as Croydon, one thing that will make it less likely that they will use the train to go north is the current frequency of the Thameslink service? He will appreciate that the residents of Croydon will warmly welcome this enormous extra investment in the public transport infrastructure in London, but has he made any assessment of the impact of the transfer of people from road to rail?

Sir George Young: It is indeed good news for Croydon, for precisely the reasons that my hon. Friend outlines. In my statement, I said that the project would help to relieve road congestion by making a number of journeys possible by train that are not currently practicable and that are therefore made by car. Initial assessments show that Thameslink 2000 will increase rail travel by about 3 per cent. in the south-east area, and I expect that some of that will be diversion from the road.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: The Secretary of State mentioned the benefits in terms of access to the channel


tunnel, but does he understand the frustration that exists on the west coast main line? Although the Thameslink 2000 project, welcome though it may be, will benefit some, it will do nothing for the many people who get poor service and poor access. It is also apparent from the statement that there is no overall structure and planning framework by which services will be improved nationally. Does that mean that, so long as we have this lousy Government, we shall have lousy services on the west coast?

Sir George Young: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has disturbed what otherwise was a consensus that this is a sensible project with which to proceed, at least from new Labour, if not from old Labour. The whole thrust of my announcement was that it would be possible for additional services to be provided by rail. I hoped that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that.
So far as the west coast main line is concerned, the hon. Gentleman will know that, initially, we are taking forward, also under the private finance initiative, signalling projects, on which we hope to make good progress during 1996.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: My right hon. Friend has been involved in London politics as a councillor and Member of Parliament for many years. Can he remember a time when there have been as many railway projects under consideration, planning and construction—realistic lines, which will come about in our lifetime? Does he consider that the rather churlish response of the Opposition reflects the fact that they know that this is considerably in excess of anything planned by the then Labour-controlled GLC, or anything that they could manage if they were in government?

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He was also kind enough to draw attention to my long connection with London politics—a connection which, sadly, the boundary commission may be bringing to an end.
I have mentioned a number of the other projects that are currently under way. The Central line is to undergo £750 million-worth of modernisation, and to receive 85 new trains; £400 million-worth of Northern line trains will come into service in 1996; and the tendering process to choose the private consortium for the Lewisham extension should be completed in the spring. There are many other projects, including the Heathrow express and the Jubilee line extension. It is difficult to sustain the argument that the Government are not investing in public transport in the capital.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Secretary of State would expect me, as the Member of Parliament representing the area surrounding London Bridge, to support cross-London rail routes. I presume, however, that he would not expect me to support the alignment south of Blackfriars, given the prospect of substantial demolition of residential and commercial properties and Borough market.
Can the Secretary of State confirm that his announcement does not prejudice the right of the inquiry to decide that that route should not go ahead, and that residents and other interested parties are entitled to argue

that there is a viable alternative route south of Blackfriars bridge, via the Elephant and Castle and Herne Hill? That would not involve nearly as much disruption and demolition.

Sir George Young: It would indeed be possible for the hon. Gentleman's constituents to argue to the inspector, under the process provided for by the Transport and Works Act 1992, both that they object to the proposal and that they can suggest an alternative way of meeting the need. It would then be up to the inspector to judge the merits of the argument, and to submit them in his report to me.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: I welcome the way in which my right hon. Friend used his statement to trail an announcement relating to the promoter of the channel tunnel rail link. As he knows, the Government have chosen Ebbsfleet, 19 minutes from St. Pancras, as the channel tunnel rail link intermediate station: that will provide my constituents with magnificent connections to all parts of the country, north and south.

Sir George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. I have said on one or two occasions that I hope to make an announcement about the channel tunnel rail link shortly; I can say no more at this stage.

Mr. Henry Bellingham: Today's announcement will be welcome in East Anglia, particularly in King's Lynn and west Norfolk. The borough council has lobbied hard for the project, not least because it will provide new economic opportunities.
Is my right hon. Friend aware of the recent announcement that the King's Lynn to London route is to have new Networkers, and can he confirm it? More broadly, does he agree that his statement shows the Government's commitment to public transport?

Sir George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend: what he has said is, indeed, the case. The Thameslink 2000 diagram, which I have before me, reveals new opportunities for the King's Lynn-Cambridge-Royston line, through connections and the opening up of destinations in the south.
I thank my hon. Friend for what he said towards the end of his remarks. The Government are indeed committed to driving up standards on the railways, and enabling them to play a greater part in taking traffic off the roads.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: My right hon. Friend has spoken of the benefits for the south coast from Brighton to Bognor Regis. The Kent lines through Eltham and New Eltham will benefit particularly from the flyover at New Cross and the Borough Market junction proposals. Do the Liberals seriously want Borough Market junction to be taken out of the scheme? Virtually everyone has been fighting for better public transport links in south London for the past 20 years.

Sir George Young: As a north London Member, I hesitate to intervene in a dispute between south London Members. My hon. Friend was right in what he said at the beginning, however: Thameslink 2000 will provide enormous opportunities for people in south-east London.

Points of Order

Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware that, last Thursday, I dropped you a note and a copy of a statutory instrument, the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1996. I dropped you that note because that issue—the proposals to change the statutory instrument—was first flagged up three years ago. Certainly the current incumbents of office—the Ministers—at the Department for Education and Employment told me in January that it would be ready in February, and it was. It was rushed through—some people might say hastily—to meet the commitments given in the Standing Committee on the Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill.
The instrument not only lacks coherence: it lacks legibility. When I was a teacher, had a group of students brought it in to me, I would have sent them back—DFEE and all—and told them to repeat the exercise until it was in a form that was legible, coherent and acceptable to the House. I seek your advice on whether the instrument is in an acceptable form to be presented to hon. Members.

Madam Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. I understand, as he says, that the instrument laid before the House last week contains a number of manuscript alterations to the printed proof. I have taken the trouble to look at the instrument to see it for myself.
The form of the instrument is a matter for the Department concerned, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman must pursue his inquiry in that direction. I have myself made further inquiries, and I understand that the Minister was attempting to be helpful to the Committee in laying the draft instrument at the earliest opportunity. Perhaps the reason why there were so many manuscript amendments was his attempt to help the Committee at that stage.

Mr. John Butcher: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware that, over the centuries, the House has gained its powers and privileges through its ability to deny or grant the supply of moneys to the Executive, and the decisions that the Executive makes. A decision will soon be made to spend a large amount of money—raised through public subscription—at a particular location to celebrate the millennium appropriately. The Millennium Commission is unelected, and it is a large amount of money.
If the Secretary of State for National Heritage were to come to you and request a short debate and a free vote, in which the representatives of all parts of the country could express a view, I am sure that it would be excellent therapy for those who can become hyper-ventilated over the issue, and would be seen as an endorsement of the decision, or a recommendation, after which there could be no argument over who rightly secured the investment of that money.

Madam Speaker: That is hardly a point of order, but I understand that the hon. Gentleman needed to ventilate the matter. He may, of course, care to put it to the Leader of the House during business questions, because it is a matter for him, not for the Speaker.

Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This morning, for the first time that I can remember, I noticed that openly armed police officers were around the outskirts of the Houses of Parliament. I understand that you are not responsible for police activity outside of the House, but only for the inside.
I am as interested in security as any other hon. Member in this place, but were you consulted before that rather dramatic decision was taken? If you were not consulted, do you know whether leading Members of the House were consulted? I feel that it is not a welcome development, although we all know the reasons for it. However, it looks as though we are somewhat under siege in this place, and I feel that, by giving that impression, we are in many ways giving way to the terrorists. I wonder whether you would like to reflect on the matter, and tell us exactly how the decision was taken.

Madam Speaker: I refuse to discuss matters of security across the Floor of the House. If the hon. Gentleman would care to see me or the Serjeant at Arms privately, he will be most welcome.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You are the defender of Back Benchers' rights in this House. During our questions to the Secretary of State for the Environment, there was only one question—Question 5—on local authority revenue. You will have noted that, after the question from the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) was answered, there was an immediate use of an ancient practice to gag further questions on that subject.
The Labour party is clearly embarrassed by the Government's generosity this year in the settlement for local government finance, and it was an unfair abuse by the Labour Opposition to gag Back Benchers on a very important subject.

Madam Speaker: It is the prerogative of hon. Members to use our procedures. I think that the hon. Gentleman who acted in that way is seeking a full Adjournment debate on the matter, so that more time can be made available for questioning on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), Madam Speaker. I thank you for your ruling and guidance on that matter, but may I draw to your attention a possible related procedural complication?
The printing of the substantive document and its distribution may be delayed. It has been made available to the Committee, but it is of importance to every school organisation, every school governor and every education authority across the country.
It so happens that the statutory instrument is germane to the Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill, whose Committee stage is drawing to a close. It is also germane to that Bill's Report stage. However, by the time the Bill reaches its Report stage, either the statutory instrument will have been debated in Committee or it will not. In either case, the question arises whether there will have


been sufficient time for its substantive printed version to have been made available to interested parties. Should it be debated in Committee or on Report?

Madam Speaker: I said that it was a matter for the Department concerned, but I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. Some of the Ministers on the Government Front Bench will no doubt have noted the hon. Gentleman's comments.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: As a Back Bencher, I seek your advice, Madam Speaker, and, in a sense, your protection. You will know that the list of hon. Members wishing to speak in yesterday's debate on the Scott report was heavily oversubscribed by, I understand, hon. Members of all parties.
I was admonished by Mr. Deputy Speaker because I sought, with no disrespect to the occupant of the Chair, to mention the fact that, of the 12 Conservative Members called to speak, most were ex-Ministers, six were old Etonians, five had been to Oxford university and all were associated with one of the main protagonists in the events under debate. I meant no disrespect to the Chair, but was simply asking whether Government Whips had applied any undue pressure on the Chair to ensure such representation.

Madam Speaker: This is one Parliament where there is no pressure—undue or otherwise—on the Speaker of the House. When selecting the names of Conservative Members to be called yesterday, I did not look in "Who's Who" to see whether they had been to Dewsbury grammar school or to Oxford or Cambridge. It was entirely my selection and, having reflected on yesterday's debate, I thought that a good cross-section of hon. Members was called.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: In the excitement of last night, when the Government managed to get their majority of one, perhaps it went unnoticed that, according to the weekend press, two Tory Members who went through the Division Lobbies to sustain the Government were bankrupt. Do you not think it is time that we examined the matter, because there is speculation that as many as 30 of them are bankrupt as a result of their investment at Lloyd's?

Madam Speaker: That is barely a point of order for me.

Void Premises

Mr. Hartley Booth: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the owners of property which has been empty for more than three months to make the reasons for the vacancy public; to make such property available in certain specified circumstances; and for connected purposes.
I venture to suggest that housing need is at the top of the list of constituents' complaints and worries brought to our surgeries. I happen to believe that the housing problem goes far beyond that of the "void premises" in the Bill's title, and amounts to a scandal.
There are 150,000 homeless people in this country—92,000 are statutorily homeless, 46,000 are in short lets, 8,000 are on the streets, and 5,000 are in bedsits—yet there are 800,000 empty homes. If my modest arithmetic is correct, there are five empty homes for every homeless person. What one hears from officials is incorrect. Many of the empty homes are in areas of greatest need. We must marry the two sides of the matter. That scandal is an indictment of us all, and it is incumbent on us all to deal with it. My Bill proposes to do just that.
The Government have recognised the problem, and have introduced measure after measure to deal with it. During part of the period since 1979, the number of void premises fell. Unfortunately, in three of the past four years the number of void properties rose. Sadly, the number of Government-owned void properties—especially those owned by the Ministry of Defence—has risen faster than any other group of void premises.
My Bill addresses two parts of the problem. Among the people who own the 700,000 void properties in the private sector, we need to enhance persuasion. Through the Empty Homes Agency—an excellent body, which is partly funded by the Government—three or four local authorities, including Reading, Southampton and Brighton, have empty homes strategies. They employ an empty homes officer—that is excellent—who persuades people that their empty private homes should be used, that they are losing £5,000 a year by not using them, and that 95 per cent. of all tenancies are successful. Those persuasive techniques are working. Recently, 200 homes were brought back into use in Reading as a result, for example.
What if persuasion fails? My Bill proposes that every local authority should have a void strategy and employ an officer to deal with the disposal of voids—first by identifying them, and then by persuading people to use them.
In addition, 102,000 empty properties are owned by the taxpayer—the public sector. It is totally unacceptable to permit that. Many of those properties have been empty for a long time. My Bill—it follows a paper that was kindly published by the Adam Smith Institute two years ago, and an entirely successful Government trial project in Clapton Park estate in Hackney—proposes that people on waiting lists in local authority areas should have the right to slap a notice on the doorstep of local authority premises or Government agencies when they have spotted that the homes have been lying wasted and idle for three months or more.
That notice of negligence to public bodies should say: "We, Mr. and Mrs. Bloggs, identify your void property. We call on you to use it, start to repair it, or condemn it


within 21 days." If it is used or repairs are begun within 21 days, we have all succeeded. Under the Bill, if that local authority or the Ministry of Defence fails to act within the designated period, one more homeless person will have found a home. Conservative Members, who always applaud efficiency, will sigh with relief, and we especially welcome any relief of homelessness.
If the idea comes to fruition, we shall see not only how homelessness can be tackled in a new way, but that people can be trusted. Beyond the first day when the new tenants go in, they will be told that they must deal with dilapidations and repair the premises. Of course they must, and we should trust them to do that. All over the world, and in our country too, trusting the people in such policies as sweat equity, staircasing and homesteading has brought benefits and has been proved sensible and useful.
I ask the House to accept my Bill, so that all the necessary steps can be taken. Sometimes it is necessary for the House to think the unthinkable. My proposals combine the best of ingredients—common sense, trusting the people, and using national resources better for a good cause.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hartley Booth, Sir Timothy Sainsbury, Mr. David Lidington, Mr. Julian Brazier, Mr. Patrick Thompson, Mr. Piers Merchant, Mr. James Pawsey, Mr. Anthony Steen, Mr. Nigel Evans, Mr. Robert G. Hughes and Sir Sydney Chapman.

VOID PREMISES

Mr. Hartley Booth accordingly presented a Bill to require the owners of property which has been empty for more than three months to make the reasons for the vacancy public; to make such property available in certain specified circumstances; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 8 March and to be printed. [Bill 66.]

Orders of the Day — Criminal Procedure and Investigations Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
One of the most important responsibilities of any Government is to ensure that their criminal justice system is fair, efficient and effective—fair towards all those affected by it, efficient in focusing on the issues that really matter at trial, and effective in bringing about the acquittal of the innocent and the conviction of the guilty.
The Bill is intended to meet those aims. Like the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, it is designed to restore the balance in our criminal justice system—to make life tougher for criminals and to improve the protection of the public. It implements proposals made in three consultation papers that we issued last year. More generally, it represents our response to a number of recommendations made by the royal commission on criminal justice in its 1993 report. The Bill's most significant provisions extend to Northern Ireland. Also, I am pleased to say that it implements the last of the 27 points that I announced in October 1993 to strengthen the fight against crime.
The most important provisions in the Bill are those dealing with prosecution and defence disclosure. The current arrangements require too much of the prosecution and too little of the defence. They do not serve the interests of justice and are in need of reform.
At present, the prosecution must disclose to the defence any material that may possibly be relevant to an issue in the case, unless the material is sensitive and a court rules that it may be withheld. In contrast, with a few specified exceptions, the accused need not disclose anything about his defence before the trial.
The current law has given rise to serious problems. The accused can request the disclosure of reams of material, whether or not it has any relevance to the defence that he proposes to advance at trial. That places heavy burdens on the police in particular.
It is also difficult to protect from disclosure sensitive material, such as the identity of an informant. The current rules oblige the courts to order disclosure in cases where the actual relevance of sensitive material may be marginal at best. An adverse ruling requiring the disclosure of the identity of an informant may place the informant's life in danger. All too often, the prosecution must abandon the case, however strong the other evidence may be.
Let me give an example. Three individuals were arrested in possession of a number of incendiary devices. An issue arose subsequently about the disclosure of intelligence files held centrally by the police, on the organisation to which the defendants belonged. None of the information was to form part of the prosecution case at the trial, but the trial judge ruled that the files should be disclosed to the defence. Since that would have compromised future investigations, the prosecution decided to offer no evidence, rather than comply with the


ruling. One of the defendants commented in a statement to the media that it had been their intention to remove the contents of a vehicle and then damage it. He added:
The only reason this trial collapsed was because the prosecution refused to reveal to our defence lawyers material about us held on computer by the police.
The presentation of a defence at the last minute—with no advance warning to the prosecution—does not contribute to the efficient conduct of a trial. It encourages defendants to come forward with a plausible, but false, defence at a very late stage.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Before my right hon. and learned Friend leaves the subject of sensitive material, will he confirm that questions of sensitive material arise in trial after trial in the criminal courts? Does not that make a total nonsense of the part of Lord Justice Scott's report that seems to indicate that public interest immunity does not apply to criminal cases?

Mr. Howard: I shall be referring later to the relevance of Lord Justice Scott's report to the Bill. Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) will forgive me if I do not respond to his invitation to pursue that matter at this stage.
The royal commission on criminal justice found the current arrangements unsatisfactory and concluded that changes were needed. Its proposals included the creation of a statutory scheme for prosecution and defence disclosure in stages, underpinned by subordinate legislation or a code of practice. We agree with that general approach, but our detailed proposals differ from the royal commission's in two important respects.
First, the commission's test for prosecution disclosure was very wide ranging. If anything, it would have imposed even more burdens on the prosecution and the police than the current requirements. Our scheme focuses on the likely effect of unused material on the prosecution case and on the defence case when that is known. Secondly, the proposals would have required the accused to give only a general indication of the nature of his case and would not in practice have contributed to narrowing the issues in dispute before the trial. Our scheme requires the defence to provide more detailed information so as to clarify in advance what is really at issue between the two parties. In building on the work of the royal commission, we have set ourselves the task of putting in place a system that will remove the iniquities of the current arrangements without denying the defendant access to material to which he would be entitled in the interests of justice.
We set out our proposals in a consultation paper in May last year. Many organisations and individuals representing a range of interests responded to it. There was widespread support for the Government's proposals, particularly on defence disclosure, and those proposals have formed the basis for the disclosure provisions of the Bill.
The police warmly welcomed our proposals. As the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers said,
The proposals should help to reduce problems arising out of the bulk of material the prosecution currently has to disclose. It will introduce a more systematic and therefore more accountable system.
We particularly endorse the principle of defence disclosure as an important and positive step which we believe will be welcomed by many working within the criminal justice system.

The president of the Police Superintendents Association added:
This Bill is a real step forward in the fight against professional crime and is another weight in the re-balancing of the criminal justice system which for too long has protected those who abuse the present arrangements.
To complete the picture, the chairman of the Police Federation described the reaction of his association to the Bill in graphic terms, saying:
This is a black day for the Lawyers' Angling Society. This Bill should end the farce of the gigantic fishing expedition which has become a notorious tactic amounting, in plain English, to blatant attempts to obstruct and delay justice.
I come now to the detail of the disclosure provisions in the Bill. The disclosure scheme in part I would require the prosecutor to disclose to the accused unused material that the prosecutor thought might undermine the prosecution case. At the same time, he would give the accused a schedule listing all unused material that was not sensitive. In response, the accused would disclose the general nature of his case, the matters on which he took issue with the prosecution and the reasons for doing so. Defence disclosure would be mandatory in the Crown court, but voluntary in magistrates courts.
In response to defence disclosure, the prosecutor would disclose any additional unused material that might assist the defence that had been disclosed. If a dispute arose about whether there was any other material that might assist that defence, it would be resolved by the court. The Bill allows a court to draw an inference if the accused does not comply with the defence disclosure requirements.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the Home Secretary clarify a point that has been of concern to the Law Society? The duty to disclose information that may undermine the prosecution case is taken to include material that would support the defence case, and there may be a grey area in between. Will the Home Secretary confirm that if, for example, the police came upon evidence that might tend to support a defendant's alibi, that would have to be disclosed, even though it may not directly undermine any piece of evidence forming part of the prosecution case?

Mr. Howard: With great respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, the remarks that I have just made could not have been clearer in dealing with that specific point. That situation would not arise in the context of first stage disclosure, for the simple reason that it is not at that stage a part of the prosecution's duty to anticipate any defence that might be disclosed. But if, at the second stage of prosecution disclosure, the defence team had identified its defence as an alibi defence—to take the hon. and learned Gentleman's example—it would certainly be part of the prosecution's duty to disclose any material available to it that supported that alibi defence. That is absolutely clear from what I said—it is a clear part of the scheme that underlies the Bill.
As to sensitive material, the Bill retains the current procedure, whereby the court rules on whether it is in the public interest to disclose such material. However, the prosecutor would not need to bring such material before the court unless he thought that it undermined the prosecution case or unless it might reasonably assist the defence disclosed by the accused.
Part II requires the Secretary of State to prepare a code of practice for the actions of the police in relation to unused material for prosecution disclosure. It sets out the matters that may be included in the code of practice, including what material is to be preserved by the police. As now, the police would make all the material available to the prosecutor, with whom decisions on disclosure would rest. Although the code of practice is for the police, others conducting criminal investigations would have regard to it. Under the Bill, the code of practice must be subject to statutory consultation and approval by Parliament before it comes into operation.
We have prepared a draft of the code of practice and have placed it in the Library, so as to inform the debates on the Bill in the House. It may be capable of further refinement, but at the moment it represents the Government's best view of what the code ought to contain, taking account of comments by outside interests and the debates in another place.
I do not want to leave the subject of disclosure without saying something about the recommendations of Sir Richard Scott. Sir Richard makes a number of recommendations about prosecution procedures and public interest immunity. Some of those are relevant to the Bill's subject matter, and Sir Richard notes that they will have to be considered in the context of the legislation currently before the House—this Bill. We are studying the recommendations and have not yet reached a decision on them.
Without pre-empting the consideration of those recommendations, I must point out that the recommendations on prosecution procedures take as their starting point the existing law on disclosure. I think that it is widely recognised that the current arrangements are unsatisfactory and, as I explained, the Bill proposes significant changes to them. We shall therefore be considering Sir Richard's recommendations, not against the existing law, but against the provisions in the Bill. We hope to be in a position to announce our conclusions in time for changes to be made in the Bill, if changes should appear to be necessary.
As for the recommendations on public interest immunity, Sir Richard Scott comments that legislative intervention is, in his opinion, neither necessary nor, at present, desirable. In its current form, the Bill does not amend the law on public interest immunity. It preserves the existing common law rules about whether disclosure is in the public interest, and provides for rules of court to be made on the practice and procedure to be followed by the courts in relation to applications to the court and orders by the court.
During our debate yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) and my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) argued that the law on public interest immunity should be put into statute. The Government will consider that issue, and the clutch of detailed recommendations by Sir Richard Scott on public interest immunity, very carefully. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster promised, we shall ensure that the House has an opportunity to consider those matters further.

Mr. Jack Straw: Plainly, the Government will take time to consider the detail of the

recommendations made in Sir Richard Scott's report, but I wish to ask the Home Secretary specifically about the general point that Sir Richard made at paragraph K6.18, where he plainly anticipated the continuing use of public interest immunity certificates in criminal trials, but went on to say, in recommendation (ii):
PII claims on a class basis should not in future be made",
and distinguished between a class basis and a contents basis. Does the Secretary of State accept that recommendation?

Mr. Howard: That matter will be considered in the consultation exercise. Indeed, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is seeking views on that matter and has requested those views by the beginning of May. That is a question to be considered during the consultation.

Mr. Donald Anderson: rose—

Mr. John Greenway: rose—

Mr. Howard: I give way first to the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway).

Mr. Anderson: The Home Secretary mentioned a consultation exercise, which obviously will take some time, so I want to ask about the timetable. Is it possible that, in Committee or on Report, the Bill will have the benefit of any conclusions of that consultation exercise?

Mr. Howard: I confess that that is unlikely. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has said that he wants replies to his consultation exercise by May, and obviously it will take some time thereafter to consider the responses. I cannot, therefore, hold out any great hope to the hon. Gentleman or the House that, should we conclude that legislation is desirable in that area, such legislation might reasonably be expected to be part of the Bill.

Mr. Greenway: This is a genuine query to which I do not know the answer, but I hope that this matter has been considered, and will be considered as the Bill proceeds through Committee.
One of the overriding reasons why trials have collapsed is that the police have refused to give information about the identity of informers, of premises from which observations of criminal activity have been made and of those who may have been involved in surveillance. Can my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that, when considering any changes in PII certificates, he will bear in mind the fact that the Security Service Bill will allow the Security Service to become involved in surveillance of criminals? Will he ensure that the interests and identities of members of the Security Service are protected, and that we do not end up with more collapsed trials because the legislation or the changes are not properly in place and because the courts may wish to rule that the identity of a person who has been involved in surveillance should be revealed to the court?

Mr. Howard: I assure my hon. Friend that certainly nothing in the legislation that is before the House or in


the Security Service Bill would increase the prospects of disclosure of any information of that kind or of any trial being stopped on that basis. Those matters will continue to be considered on a case-by-case basis, because a sensible decision can be made only in the context of a particular case. By indicating that the prosecution's duty to disclose is limited by referring to clear relevance to the issues in the case, the provisions will lessen the likelihood of disclosing information of that kind and of trials collapsing in those circumstances.
I refer now to the other provisions in the Bill. Parts III and IV make two important improvements to pre-trial procedures, giving effect to the proposals in the consultation paper on pre-trial hearings, which we published last year. Part III enables a judge to order a preparatory hearing in a long or complex case if he thinks that substantial benefits may accrue. The preparatory hearing would be similar to those held in cases of serious or complex fraud.
At a preparatory hearing under the Bill, the judge may order either party to provide a statement of its case. He may exercise a range of powers to narrow the issues in dispute and to assist the jury's understanding of the case. Such rulings may be appealed against, there are sanctions if either side later departs from its case or fails to comply with a requirement imposed at the hearing, and there is provision for reporting restrictions.
Part IV creates a power for a judge to make a binding ruling on the admissibility of evidence or other point of law in any case at a pre-trial hearing. That power will be available in all cases that are to be tried at the Crown court, except those in which the judge orders a preparatory hearing, when he will be able to exercise the range of powers conferred by part III. Taken together, the measures will encourage the better preparation of cases and the better conduct of the trial. Trials will be more efficient and less stressful and time consuming for jurors and witnesses.
Part V contains a range of reforms to magistrates courts procedures. Among other things, they amend the provisions on transfer for trial in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994—further amendments on transfer will be needed—they provide for the accused to give an indication of plea before a decision is taken on mode of trial, and they extend the maximum period for the remand of juveniles in certain circumstances.
Part VI of the Bill contains a number of important provisions to protect victims and witnesses and to enhance public confidence in the criminal justice system. Two of the provisions reflect recommendations of the royal commission on criminal justice. The first of them—providing for a retrial if an acquittal has been tainted by jury nobbling—gives effect to the only one of the 27 measures that I announced in October 1993 which has still to be implemented.
There can be no greater threat to the rule of law than if criminals believe that they can bully or bribe their way out of the dock. That is true whether their target is a juror or a witness. For that reason, the Bill goes further than the royal commission recommended. It will make it possible to have a retrial if an acquittal has been tainted by a subsequent conviction for interference with, or intimidation of, either witnesses or jurors. The court that convicts for the interference or intimidation offence will have to certify that there is a real possibility that the

original acquittal would not have happened but for the intimidation or interference. An application must then be made to the High Court for an order quashing the acquittal. Both courts will need to be satisfied that a retrial would not be contrary to the interests of justice.
The Bill also implements the recommendation of the royal commission that, as a last resort, judges should be able to protect victims or witnesses by imposing reporting restrictions on false or irrelevant allegations made during a speech in mitigation.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I refer to an important issue of fact. I support strongly the Home Secretary's announcement about the Bill's provision for retrials in the event of jury or witness nobbling. Does the Bill allow for a retrial when the witness or juror who has been nobbled—it is more likely to apply to witnesses—is dead?

Mr. Howard: I see no reason why that circumstance should eliminate the provisions or why the Bill should make specific provision for it. The Bill sets out clearly the requirements that must be met, and I do not see why it should deal with that specific circumstance. It does not provide that the witness or juror must be alive for the provisions to take effect. In that context, the provisions will clearly apply.

Mr. Carlile: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but I obviously did not make myself clear—that is plainly my fault. A witness may be interfered with and later killed—that happens in serious crimes. Unfortunately, it is not an uncommon experience nowadays. The perpetrator of the original crime may have been acquitted as a result of that now dead witness having been nobbled. Can that acquitted person be retried under the Bill's provisions?

Mr. Howard: I see no reason why such a person should not be retried. The Bill's provisions are set out very clearly. Unless the legislation states that the juror or witness must be alive—and it does not—it is clear that, in the circumstances that the hon. and learned Gentleman identifies, the provisions in the Bill will apply in the normal way. I do not see why those circumstances should affect its operation.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: As to the intimidation or killing of witnesses, many public interest immunity certificates are issued by quite junior lawyers in cases of drug smuggling or intimidation in prison. They must be laid before the court, as occurred in the recent case.

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is correct: there is a clear role for public interest immunity in those circumstances.
Most of the provisions of the Bill, including those on disclosure, apply also in Northern Ireland. The law on disclosure in Northern Ireland is similar in most respects to the law in England and in Wales, and the difficulties to which the present arrangements give rise are potentially at least as serious there as here. We have concluded that the scheme embodied in the Bill is well suited to the circumstances of Northern Ireland. Schedule 3 to the Bill contains a number of modifications necessary to tailor its provisions to the legal context of Northern Ireland.
I hope that it will assist the House if I give notice of the main amendments that the Government intend to bring forward at later stages of the Bill. First, we intend to table amendments to deal with the misuse of prosecution material that is disclosed to the accused under the Bill. The purpose of disclosing material that does not form part of the prosecution case is to enable the accused to prepare his defence. Sometimes that material is used for a wrong purpose—for example, to harass witnesses or to gain financial advantages for the accused or his associates. We want to deter those who may be tempted to misuse disclosed material and to reassure those who supply information to the police that it will not be used other than for the intended purpose.
Secondly, we are considering further how best to tackle the difficult issue of third party disclosure. Third parties, such as medical practices, banks or local authority social services departments, may have material that would be disclosable if held by the prosecution, so there must be some way of identifying and obtaining it. However, at present, the accused may request such material at a very late stage in the proceedings, without indicating its relevance to his defence. That places heavy burdens on third parties, who then must trawl through their records at the cost of considerable time and effort. More importantly, it results in delay and sometimes the abandonment of proceedings—often in cases where children are the victims.
We have been developing proposals for procedural changes that will benefit third parties without preventing the accused from seeing material that helps his defence. We have consulted the judiciary and others about them, and we aim to bring them forward at a later stage in the Bill's proceedings.
Finally, we intend to bring forward amendments to place beyond doubt the powers of the police in relation to searches of DNA databases. The amendments will ensure that the police can make full use of both DNA data and fingerprints.
The Bill is important and is intended to make our criminal justice system fairer, more efficient and more effective. It will make it easier for courts to reach the right decision. It will do much to improve public confidence in the criminal justice system. As such, it continues the work that I set in hand when I became Home Secretary, to strengthen the fight against crime. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Jack Straw: As the Home Secretary said, the Bill is important. As I said during the debate on the Loyal Address, we welcome the Bill's principle and purpose, although we shall of course ensure that it is subject to full scrutiny in the House, as it has been in the other place.
The Bill is about procedure. For some people, the process by which courts operate is a dry, technical subject of second order, but in practice the substantive rights that citizens should enjoy, such as the right to justice, depend on the machinery—the procedure—by which those rights can be exercised. The process is therefore of immense importance. It determines our court system's character and the criminal justice system's public reputation.
In the 1970s and 1980s, that public reputation was badly damaged by mounting evidence that the system was unbalanced in favour of the prosecution. Judges' rules which were supposed to provide clear guidance to the police about the treatment of suspects and the taking of evidence from them turned out to be ineffective and unenforceable. Corners were routinely cut by investigators. The culture was that, broadly, the end justified the means and that if it was known to investigators that a suspect had committed a series of crimes it was acceptable to adduce informal oral admissions of guilt and sometimes to encourage confessions by physical force.
The lack of effective supervision of the process inexorably led a minority of investigators down the path of corruption, of allowing the guilty to go free in return for favours and, even worse, of "fitting up" innocent people, either by the manufacture of prosecution evidence or by the suppression of evidence in the hands of the police that would be helpful to the defence.
Public disquiet about those abuses led among other things to the establishment of two royal commissions on the criminal justice system. The first of those, chaired by Sir Cyril Philips, reported in 1981. Its recommendations led to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and to the establishment of police and criminal evidence codes. That royal commission said that there should be a change in the prosecution system to detach prosecutors from the direct control of the police. However, the Crown Prosecution Service was then established as a centralised national service, explicitly against that royal commission's recommendation.
Evidence of serious defects in the system continued to emerge. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin)—having heard part of the Secretary of State's speech, he has had to leave the Chamber, but I hope that he will return to make a speech—played a leading part in shining a light on some of the most disreputable of those practices with his exposure of miscarriages of justice in the Guildford Four and Birmingham Six cases. My hon. Friend may be rightly feted for that now, but it is worth remembering that, for many years before the truth emerged, he was roundly abused by many people, including Ministers, for his efforts.
Following those notorious miscarriages of justice, the second royal commission was established under the chairmanship of Viscount Runciman. Its report prompted some changes—including a few of the well-known 27 points in the Secretary of State's speech to the Conservative party conference in 1993—such as new and welcome machinery for the investigation of miscarriages of justice. We appreciate that the Secretary of State did not have time during that speech to name the author of every point.
The courts, too, gradually responded to defence lawyers' demands for far greater access to so-called "unused material" held by the prosecution. After a series of Court of Appeal rulings—not all consistent with one another—in the Ward case, the Saunders case, the Davis, Johnson and Rowe case and others, the pendulum has swung from the position 20 years ago when the prosecution was under virtually no duty to disclose any unused material, to the position today, when it must disclose almost all unused material and courts can order


the disclosure of sensitive background information, including the sites from which surveillance has been undertaken and the identities of informants.
The first priority of any criminal justice process must be to ensure, so far as is humanly possible, that no person innocent of a crime is convicted of it. The effect of a miscarriage of justice on an individual is so great that that consideration must outweigh all others. It is for that reason, above all, that the fundamental requirement is on the prosecution to prove its case and not on the defence to disprove it.
Other priorities, however, are also of great importance. They include ensuring that the guilty are convicted and are not able to walk free from court by what amounts to an abuse or a defect of process; that victims and witnesses are accorded a proper role and dignity in the process; and that public confidence in the system is maintained and enhanced. It is widely accepted by hon. Members on both sides of the House and by people throughout the country that criminal procedure, especially in respect of disclosure of evidence, has become unbalanced in favour of the defendant.
There have been two results. First, an immense and disproportionate burden has been placed on the police and the prosecution to disclose anything unused but potentially of relevance to the defence. That has added to delays in the court system and has tied up huge amounts of police and Crown Prosecution Service time. Last year, Brian Johnson, former chief constable of Lancashire police, wrote to me setting out what had happened in just one case in which that force had been involved. He admitted that it was a complicated case, but said:
For example, during a long running corruption enquiry in Lancashire, a police officer was employed full time supervising access to material by one solicitor for a continuous period of three months. Additionally in that case thousands upon thousands of documents were copied for the defence—the rental costs of copying equipment alone was not insignificant.
Each document in the case had to be considered in respect of each of a number of defendants, firstly to determine whether it was material in relation to a particular defendant and then as to whether it should be scheduled as sensitive or non-sensitive. In the inquiry I quote above, given the number of defendants and the thousands of documents involved, it was estimated that over 5.5 million decisions had to be taken in respect of the disclosure of unused material.
That is profoundly unsatisfactory.
The second result is that some well-founded prosecutions have had to be abandoned because otherwise critical information about informants or surveillance sites would have had to be disclosed, putting at risk not just registered informants, whose safety must be defended, but innocent members of the public who had co-operated with the police to help to secure the conviction of serious wrongdoers.
I give just one example. It relates to a case at Bristol Crown court in 1993. During 1992, police officers mounted an operation in Bristol to curtail a large amount of drug dealing in the city. So that the people dealing in drugs could readily be identified, the police mounted an elaborate operation which involved police officers posing as buyers making test purchases for crack cocaine. They were supported by police officers with a video camera in an unmarked van and by other officers in a static observation point from which the events were also recorded. The defendants were arrested after having sold crack to the undercover officers, but in court the charges

against nine of the defendants were withdrawn after the defence demanded to see surveillance film taken from a council flat.
The substance of the defence case—this makes the Secretary of State's point about fishing for artificial defences—was one of identification. The police had already made full disclosure of the video recordings taken from the unmarked police van which gave the evidence of identification—that was all the evidence that the prosecution was going to use—but defence counsel for the nine defendants sought full disclosure of the video recordings taken from the static observation point. That had only one purpose: to disrupt the case to the point at which there had to be an acquittal, which is what happened. As the disclosure of the video evidence from the static observation point would palpably have identified the camera's location and therefore put the innocent person who had allowed that camera to be put there at serious risk, a decision was taken to withdraw the remaining charges.
One could cite many other cases. Although the decision to require disclosure was made by a judge on application in some of them, in many others prosecuting counsel anticipated the judge's decision and instructed the police to disclose the names of informants or surveillance locations. When the police felt unable to do so, cases were withdrawn before reaching open court.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Even under the current system, the trial judge has to perform a balancing exercise as to whether the evidence is relevant to the defence. I do not know all the details of the case to which my hon. Friend referred, but it may be that a more robust judge would have taken a different view from the Lord Chief Justice in the case of the Crown v. Keane.

Mr. Straw: I entirely accept my hon. Friend's point. It is on record that, unfortunately, some judges are robust and some less than robust. My hon. Friend makes the point that because of confusion there has been much second-guessing by prosecuting counsels, with cases never reaching court in the first place.
The current Lord Chief Justice, Lord Taylor of Gosforth, has shown, rightly, that no one is more concerned than him to see that the rights of the accused are properly upheld. In his Tom Sargant memorial lecture two years ago, Lord Taylor set out the consequences of the current confused state of the law:
However, the one-way traffic of disclosure by the prosecution, with no corresponding duty on the defence, has given rise to grave difficulties both for the Crown Prosecution Service and for the courts … The prosecution often have to anticipate what may conceivably be of assistance to the accused without any help from the defence so as to narrow the field. Indeed, there are often more and more searching requests by the defence for material on a purely speculative basis … The defence of duress, which used rarely to be raised, has suddenly become all the vogue and is used to seek disclosure about informants which, if given, would endanger them. Courts are being required to peruse large quantities of documents and judges, instead of being in court, are sitting in their rooms to decide what disclosure is to be made. This is an unacceptable state of affairs. It shows that the balance in this area has become distorted.
Lord Taylor was entirely right.
The Home Secretary first presented his proposals on 16 May 1995, when he published a consultation paper, which I welcomed at the time. We are glad that he has since responded to the many suggestions made, which are


reflected in changes to the Bill that we hope will be incorporated in Committee. The Bill has been improved in the other place, but the procedure that the Government adopted there initially was not, in the context of bipartisan debate, of the best. Their Lordships encountered grave difficulty considering the draft code and whether it could be laid before Parliament subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Following some adjournments in the other place, that provision has been accepted.
The Government were defeated in the other place on a proposal by Lord Ackner to strengthen the indemnity provided to protect justices and justices' clerks against orders for costs and other sums in respect of matters arising from criminal jurisdiction. I am glad that the Government have accepted that addition.
Some parts of the Bill could still be improved, and I invite a response from the Minister in winding up this debate and in Committee. When I responded to the Home Secretary's statement last May, I said that there should be sanctions against the prosecution as well as the defence when the rules in the Bill are not followed. That is important in ensuring equality of arms between defence and prosecution. There are stringent sanctions against the defence for failure to disclose and also against the defendant if he or she makes a late disclosure.
A tiny minority of abuses in the 1970s and 1980s soured the criminal justice system and led to imbalance. A breach of the rules by the prosecution ought to be underpinned by disciplinary action by the police and, in extremis, by criminal action. A palpably negligent and serious breach of the rules should lead to disciplinary action by the police or CPS. A deliberate or reckless breach should be subject to criminal proceedings.
While I accept that one of the Bill's main purposes is to reduce delays, there is concern that it might unwittingly increase them. Clause 1 provides for primary prosecution disclosure in the case of summary and either-way offences only when the accused pleads not guilty. The sensible intention is to prevent unnecessary work for the prosecution where the accused intends to plead guilty—I understand the mischief that is being addressed. However, there is a real danger that defendants will be advised to plead not guilty, as that is the only way that they will gain access to material. That would increase the delays that already bedevil criminal procedures and we must carefully consider how to overcome that difficulty—particularly as defence lawyers have become adept at ensuring that the cost slips that they submit to the Legal Aid Board are as extensive as possible. The existing rules are abused by some defence solicitors so that even in trivial cases, they refuse to proceed to a trial or disposal until all the material to which they are technically entitled is produced.
Paragraph 2.1 of the code of practice places a duty on the prosecutor to provide evidence to the defence that he believes would undermine the prosecution's case. I question whether that is too strong a test. Would it not be better to use the test employed by the Home Office in other contexts, of whether the evidence might cast significant doubt on the prosecution case? Paragraph 6.6 makes reference to sensitive material being that which is given in confidence. Much of the rest of the code is specific, but "in confidence" covers a multitude of categories and that definition should be reconsidered.
The Home Secretary referred to prohibitions in the Bill and to amendments that he will table against the misuse of evidence. In the other place, my noble Friend Lord Williams tabled amendments designed to prevent pornographic material contained in witness statements being circulated in prisons. It is an appalling but sad fact that when a small child is killed, sexually abused or raped, photographs and statements about the family come into existence. Defendants have access to that material for the necessary reasons of their defence, and they are able to circulate it in prison. The material can remain in circulation even after the defendant has left prison. My noble Friend proposed to stop such poisonous material being circulated in that way, and we regret that his amendments were resisted by the Government. I hope that the Secretary of State's amendments will deal with appalling misuse of the kind that I have described.
We agree with the principle that the defence should disclose the general nature of the case on which it relies. I do not believe that once a prima facie charge has been established against a defendant it is onerous for him to have to reveal the general nature of his defence, such as a claim that he was not present when the crime was committed or that he was present but that his conduct did not add up to the charges. We cannot accept a position in which defendants try to plead alternative defences—that they were either not there or their conduct did not amount to the crime charged—or in which, as we know happens, they wait until very late in the trial process and go fishing for defences.
I wish to deal next with the comments that the Home Secretary made about Sir Richard Scott's recommendations on public interest immunity in criminal cases. To answer the point that the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) made in an intervention on the Home Secretary's speech, as I read section K, chapter 6 of the Scott report, Sir Richard Scott anticipates that public interest immunity certificates could be used in criminal cases and, indeed, it is impossible that circumstances could arise in which they could not be used, given the nature of the material qualified by PH certificates. But Sir Richard recommended categorically that PII claims on a class basis should not be made in future. He said that PII contents claims should not he made for documents which might be of apparent assistance to the defence. He also made some detailed recommendations about the use of PII certificates.
We all listened with care to the Home Secretary's comments, and I am sure that both sides of the House agree that the Scott report is complicated. Sir Richard Scott raised some issues of principle on which the Government could and should make more prompt decisions than they will on others. For example, it would be possible to make early decisions on class claims. Sir Richard explains in detail the reasons behind his view and why, in his judgment, the avoidance of class claims would not in practice prejudice sensitive intelligence material that obviously should not be seen in open court.
We welcome the proposals in clauses 23 to 34 on preparatory hearings. I wish to make a point about the scope of clause 29, which provides for the right of appeal—with the approval of the trial judge or the Court of Appeal—against a ruling at a preparatory hearing on the admissibility of evidence or other questions of law. We agree that that would be a satisfactory way to deal with such issues before trial, but—I genuinely seek


information on this point—it seems that no appeal would be allowed against the striking out of counts in the indictment or, once there has been a preparatory hearing and the prosecution case has been heard, against the dismissal of a case altogether before the defence has put forward its case.
That is possibly the most important power belonging to the trial judge. In most such cases, judges act entirely correctly and there is no dispute about the decisions, but not all judges are robust—the adjective used by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson). Sometimes, the decisions to strike out counts in the indictment or to dismiss a case before it goes to a jury are incomprehensible. If it is right, as we believe, for a right of appeal to be available on decisions on evidential matters or other issues of law in preparatory hearings, it would also be right to allow appeals in such situations. The appeals could be allowed only in controlled circumstances or with the approval of the Attorney-General to prevent a sudden rash of appeals.
The Home Secretary referred to part V of the Bill about transfers from magistrates courts and we will examine those in detail. Clause 43 would change the current law that applies to those aged under 17 who are remanded in custody, and it would allow remands, in certain circumstances, to be extended from eight days to 28 days without a further court appearance. Although we believe that that power should not be used too often, the change in the law would be appropriate given the extreme shortage of secure local authority accommodation. In many cases these days a juvenile may be remanded to secure accommodation hundreds of miles away from the court in which he is to appear.
I visited Mansfield recently, at the invitation of my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), to talk to the police and social services directors about the total inadequacy of the youth justice system. There, as elsewhere, they have had great difficulty dealing with five persistent offenders who had been arrested 442 times between them before being remanded in custody. One of the many complaints that the people I spoke to made about the current system was that the only secure bed that could be found for the most severely persistent offender from Mansfield was in Southampton. The police officer in the case, who was the only person who could take physical custody of the young offender, had routinely to get up at 3 o'clock in the morning to go to Southampton to bring him to the remand court in Mansfield, for him to be remanded back to Southampton.
I am glad to see the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) in her place. I was told about a similar offender recently by the Blackburn police. In that case, the nearest secure accommodation that could be found was in Bristol, which led to immense problems for the police.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: No speech of mine is ever complete without an intervention from the hon. Lady, and I am delighted to offer her an opportunity.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman has raised a point about Lancaster prison. Does he recall

that we have had some notable trials there because, since the defendants are on the spot, there is no need to escort them to and from the gaol? That is a good reason to keep the court in Lancaster open.

Mr. Straw: I share the hon. Lady's view that Lancaster Crown court should be kept open. The blood transfusion service should also have been kept open, but that is not our responsibility—it is the Government's.
We welcome the proposals made in clauses 45 to 48 on jury and witness nobbling. I did not quite follow the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) about what would happen if the witness was nobbled to the point of death. He appeared to imply that there would be an incentive to murder if the death of a witness could lead to a case being wholly aborted. That would seem to encourage not just the nobbling of witnesses, but their murder.

Mr. Alex Carlile: The problem was entirely my fault and I shall try to help the hon. Gentleman. Clause 45 would provide that before a retrial following a tainted acquittal, there would have to be two preconditions—first, an acquittal and, secondly, a conviction of a nobbler. I was trying to make a point—I confess that I did not do it well—about what would happen if the nobbler was dead. In that instance, there could be no conviction of the nobbler and, therefore, no retrial. I do not see why there should not be a retrial in such circumstances, provided that the requisite evidence comes up to the criminal standard. I hope that I have made that clear now.

Mr. Straw: I now understand the hon. and learned Gentleman's point. There is a big difference between the death of a witness and the death of the person who has nobbled a witness. I accept that the hon. and learned Gentleman's point is important and I am sure that it will be raised in Committee. With great respect, I must say that the point is entirely the opposite of the one he made in his intervention.
Clauses 49 to 52 would make some important changes to the law on derogatory assertions made in mitigation, and we welcome that. I have read the clauses, as the Home Secretary might expect. So far as I can judge, no one person in the court system will have a duty to raise with the bench the question of whether derogatory assertions have been made. Although the power is available to rule out derogatory assertions, there is no specific trigger. I assume that that is left to the judge in the Crown court—who would be alert to the situation—to the clerk in the magistrates court or to the members of the bench. I am sure that a stipendiary magistrate would be alive to the problem, but a non-stipendiary magistrate who has to deal with many cases may be less alive to the possibility that derogatory assertions have been made.
I want to ask two questions. First, should the prosecutor, once mitigation has been made, have a right to make submissions to the court to the effect that these powers ought to be brought into play? My second question is a wider one, but it is important. Should prosecutors have wider duties at mitigation? Curiously, the English courts have the strictest rules of evidence for defence and prosecution when it comes to the trial of an issue. These rules of evidence stretch right back to the moment when a person is identified as a suspect by the police. Elaborate rules govern the cross-examination of


suspects in police stations—far more onerous rules than those governing the cross-examination of innocent people acting as witnesses for the prosecution in open court.
There are, however, effectively no rules when it comes to mitigation. Uncorroborated evidence about character, background, family circumstances and so on is advanced by defence lawyers as factual. At the moment, it is also unchallengeable.
I have recently been to the courts to refresh my memory of the days when I used to make small but honest living as a junior member of the Bar. It is astonishing to see the nature of mitigation. Sometimes, of course, high-quality people have produced good evidence that is not subject to criticism. But often, especially in magistrates courts, the same standards do not apply. Usually, we find, someone has died or a girlfriend has become pregnant or someone has just found a job—and so it goes on. It may well be true, of course, but these pleas in mitigation seem to spew out of the word processors of defence lawyers and no one challenges them.
That undermines confidence in the courts. It also means that all too often the defendant's previous convictions are skimmed over by the defence. Those previous convictions appear in brief on computer sheets: the bare details of a theft and the punishment for it, for instance. The defence will often try to minimise the nature of the previous convictions. My brief experience of sitting in courts recently showed me that, all too often, an unexpired conditional discharge has been issued but the magistrates courts do not properly take that fact into account or act upon it.
If the prosecutor could point out that someone had been up before, and could show the court files from which it becomes clear that a different bench has said that this was the person's last chance—if he commits the offence again, he will be subject to a custodial sentence—perhaps the problem would be alleviated. Certainly, the information should be given to the court; otherwise there will be no sense of serious progression in the sentencing system.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that until recently it was the practice in all Crown courts for there to be an antecedents officer, whose job it was to present the previous convictions of convicted persons to the judge, and to make inquiries, as requested by the judge or by the parties, as to the truth or otherwise of assertions that have been made—for example, about the facts of those convictions? Is he further aware that as a result of economies stemming from Government policies there are now virtually no antecedents officers in Crown courts? Would it be Labour party policy to restore those useful officers to the courts?

Mr. Straw: I was aware of that, and the situation is serious. It is ironic that in these days of computers and centralised records the information available to courts—especially magistrates courts, but also Crown courts—is less extensive than it was, say, 20 years ago. The answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman's second question is that I hope so.
We have welcomed the Bill. Although it may be the last of the Home Secretary's 27 points to be implemented, it should by no means be the last of any series of reforms

of the criminal justice system. I do not want to be controversial in the context of this debate, but everyone must recognise the seriousness of the problem that too few offenders end up in court. Crime has doubled in the past 17 years, while the number of those convicted or cautioned for offences has fallen by 6 per cent., and the number of convictions has slumped. Convictions as a proportion of serious crimes fell alarmingly between 1980 and 1994: for rape, from 37 per cent. to 9 per cent., and for domestic burglary, from 9 per cent. to 3 per cent. On the issue of rape, I greatly hope that it will be possible to make amendments in Committee to ensure that those who are guilty of charges of rape are more likely to be convicted of them.
Two changes need to be made in this context. First, the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 needs amending to eliminate questions about a victim's sexual history—for instance, about past abortions and early sexual relationships which are not relevant to the immediate case. That was recommended by the Heilbron committee. Secondly, it seems to us that there should be proper application of so-called similar-fact evidence, so that where the defendant is accused of more than one sexual assault on different women in similar circumstances, the cases can be heard together. There have been notorious examples of such cases being detached from one another. The result is that an accumulation of probative evidence cannot be built up.
Thirdly, the time is long overdue for reform of the Crown Prosecution Service. I referred in my opening remarks to the recommendations of the Philips royal commission, which reported to this House in January 1981 under Cm 8092. The royal commission said that there had to be changes to the CPS, adding that the last way in which it should be changed was the establishment of a single, national service. The commission went through the arguments carefully, and disputed the case for a single service at paragraphs 7.22 and 7.23:
Against this must be set the disadvantages that are likely to accrue from the bureaucratic nature of a large national organisation working in this area … We believe it to be hazardous to argue from the experience of other jurisdictions that a national prosecution service would be workable in England and Wales. We know of no common law jurisdiction in which the equivalent of a national prosecution system of the type we are discussing either covers an area with anything approaching the population of England and Wales … or deals with a crime load of anything like the same order of magnitude.
Those were wise words—unfortunately not heeded by either party when the prosecution of offences legislation came before the House in 1986. In the light of experience, however, they certainly need to be heeded.
Although the courts have fewer cases to deal with these days, they are taking longer to deal with them. The proportion of remand prisoners dealt with by the Crown courts within the statutory time limit dropped from 84 per cent. in 1989 to 74 per cent. in 1994. There was a most revealing passage about delays in the report of the debate held in another place on 5 February, when the Minister explained that under the existing committal system, the 42-day pre-trial issues guideline for service of the prosecution's case appears to be met in only very few cases. The Minister said that, although no comprehensive figures were available, sampling suggested that as many as 75 per cent. of cases exceeded that period.
Instead of cracking down on the delays, Ministers answered that by proposing to substitute for the 42-day pre-trial guideline a 70-day period to reflect changed


circumstances. That is plainly unsatisfactory. Nor is it satisfactory that the costs of legal aid for criminal cases have rocketed—in a way that is not linked, as some defence lawyers claim, to changes in criminal procedures. The cost of criminal legal aid per defendant has risen in real terms by 127 per cent. since 1979–80. That is wholly unacceptable.
There is also a profound need for a full investigation of the youth justice system, which is hardly working at all.
The Opposition welcome and support the Bill and we shall work constructively to improve it. We all want a criminal justice system that protects the innocent while ensuring conviction of the guilty. The Bill is one step along the path of reform of the Crown Prosecution Service, which is so long overdue.

Mr. Walter Sweeney: I welcome the Bill's central provisions on disclosure. It is clearly desirable that the police should not have to photocopy huge piles of paper unnecessarily. It is important that prosecution cases should not have to be dropped because of the need to avoid disclosing sensitive information, such as the names of informants.
I have in mind a case involving a major banknote forgery where suspects were arrested in a hotel bedroom following a tip-off. There was a large pile of forged banknotes in the room, some of which bore the fingerprints of some of the suspects. The case had to be dropped because the judge ordered that the identity of the person who tipped off the police would have to be disclosed.
The three-stage disclosure procedure proposed in the Bill is welcome: the obligation on the prosecution to disclose any unused material that might undermine its case; the obligation on the defence to outline its case in sufficient detail to identify the issues in dispute; and the obligation on the prosecution to disclose any further information that might assist the defence. That logical sequence should help to improve court procedures.
I am pleased that a code of practice has been prepared to assist the police and the prosecution in producing all appropriate documents. I wish, however, to sound a note of concern, which I hope will be taken up when my right hon. Friend the Minister of State replies. I am concerned about how the exercise of discretion by the police and the prosecution will be scrutinised so that the system can be seen to be effective in protecting the legitimate interests of defendants.
An idea for a defence might occur to a defendant when he and his legal advisers have an opportunity to engage in what Mr. Broughton of the Police Federation described as a fishing expedition. I am talking of an idea or ideas that may not have occurred to the defendant because he was not aware of a loophole in the prosecution's case. The police and the prosecution, from their different standpoints when compared with the approach of the suspect, may not be as acutely aware of potential defences as would be the defendant or his advisers. If the Bill is enacted, it will help to stop guilty people being acquitted. It is even more important that it should help to stop innocent people being convicted.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will be able to provide reassurance that there will be adequate scrutiny of the police and the prosecution, to

ensure that, in cases of doubt, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service err in favour of too much disclosure rather than too little.
I welcome preparatory schemes for long or complex cases as they will ensure that cases are well prepared and presented when they reach court. In complex fraud cases, that will be especially useful in helping jurors to understand complex issues.
The opportunity to argue legal points at preliminary hearings will help to avoid confusion among jurors, who feel rather baffled when they are sent out of court while legal points are argued. If issues are argued before the trial begins, jurors will be able to hear the evidence in a more seamless fashion. They will no longer be baffled by unexplained requests to leave court.
The Bill will encourage defendants to enter pleas at an early stage, which will considerably improve the court process to the advantage of all concerned. If a defendant enters a guilty plea, that will avoid the need to prepare the volume of paperwork that would be necessary if the case were going to trial. At the same time the defendant will benefit from increased certainty and increased speed in the disposal of his case. He will be able to take advantage at an early stage of any discount for his plea. The courts will be able to reflect the fact that the defendant, through his action, has saved the court, the CPS and the police quite a lot of preparatory work.
I welcome the fact that the Bill provides powers for the courts to ban reporting of false or irrelevant allegations against witnesses during pleas of mitigation. It has always worried me that once a person has been convicted, or following a guilty plea, the last word is with the defence advocate, once the court has had the opportunity to consider all the available reports, for example. The bench and reporters finish a case with the words of the defence advocate ringing in their ears, and those words may be reported in the press to the detriment of witnesses. That damages the witnesses concerned and acts as a deterrent to other public-spirited citizens in coming forward to give evidence in future.
I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary on reaching the end of his 27 points. He has delivered quickly on all his commitments in reform of the criminal law, despite the considerable difficulties created by the Opposition.
The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has received the Bill in a constructive manner; I hope that his constructive approach will continue in Committee. His concern about court delays is, I am sure, fully shared by Conservative Members. I believe that the Bill will help to reduce those delays and will lead to speedier and more effective justice.

Mr. Donald Anderson: I applaud the reasoned and reasoning contribution of the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney), which was much in the spirit of the contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). As my hon. Friend said, we welcome the Bill and support its main provisions. We shall try to work constructively during its remaining stages.
At first glance, this is a lawyer's Bill; it is somewhat technical and long. It seeks to remedy deficiencies that have been revealed in practice. In relates, however, to


deep issues of principle, such as the respective roles of defence and prosecution in criminal trials. I have in mind the golden thread of Viscount Sankey—the presumption of innocence and the burden that should properly be put on the defence. Those are areas that need properly to be explored in Committee.
The Bill has been introduced at a time when there is deep public anxiety about the criminal justice system. We should heed that anxiety with respect. By their response to consultation documents, the Government have at least given some sign of being prepared to listen.
I make but two preliminary points, the first of which is, perhaps, marginally controversial: that the Home Secretary, by his conduct over the years in criminal justice matters, can hardly be surprised that many reasonable people involved in criminal justice respond with caution and wariness to any proposals that he makes. In the past, many of his proposals have been made in the rather heady atmosphere of Conservative party conferences, which is not most conducive to a reasoned debate about criminal justice. There is always the fear that if one expresses anxiety—as, to be fair, the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan did—about ensuring that innocent people are not found guilty and that proper facilities are available to the defence, the Home Secretary will gleefully leap out and accuse us of being the "villain's friend". Let us hope that we can proceed in a rather different spirit today.
On a similar theme, each hon. Member has received a valuable briefing for the debate from a number of outside organisations, including the Law Society, the Bar Council, Justice and Liberty. Some of us have practised—and some still do—criminal law. In my judgment, it is always helpful to have a question and answer response from those who are learned in the field, particularly with a non-controversial Bill of this nature, because so often the atmosphere in Standing Committees is adversarial—we glower at each other across the Benches, which is not the best forum for such a study.
I wonder why the Government have not considered referring the Bill to a Special Standing Committee, which would allow us to examine it in a somewhat more rational atmosphere. I shall not go over the history of Special Standing Committees, but the House will know that they came into being in the early 1980s. I think that only seven Bills have been subjected to that special procedure. Indeed, since 1983–84, only two Bills have been subjected to it, and both were on Scottish business. When the Opposition made that suggestion in respect of the Asylum and Immigration Bill, the Home Secretary stated that it could not properly be referred to such a Committee because it was controversial, He said:
A Special Standing Committee is a procedure suitable for non-controversial technical Bills".—[Official Report, 20 November 1995; Vol. 267, c. 340.]
On another occasion, he said:
It has always been clear that the procedure was designed for Bills that have a degree of cross-party support. The Bills for which it has been used have been relatively technical and non-controversial."—[Official Report, 11 December 1995; Vol. 268, c. 710.]
Does not this Bill fall four square into that category? If that procedure, which has been lauded by the Government in the past, and which, as with the Criminal

Attempts Bill, has proved extremely useful to the Government, is to be used at all, is not this Bill a perfect opportunity according to the Government's definition? It cannot take up a great deal of time, because under the relevant Standing Order 28 days are allowed, and it would allow us to call experts.
The Home Secretary mentioned the consultation procedure in respect of PII certificates and the way in which Sir Richard Scott's recommendations would be examined. Would it not be appropriate, as PIIs arise under the Bill, for Sir Richard and other relevant practitioners—academic and otherwise—to be called before such a Committee? Are the Government saying that it is not appropriate for such a vehicle to be used? Surely the Bill is highly appropriate for such a procedure. The Government are not so fizzing with legislation that they have no time to deal with it because the juggernaut must press on. We all know that a substantial part of their legislative programme has already been put into effect. They have said that the consultation document on PIIs will be published in, perhaps, May. It is technically possible for the conclusions of that consultation to be incorporated in the Bill. I make that plea to the Government on the preliminary points.
On the substantive matter of disclosure, and more generally, I am attracted by many of the proposals in the Bill, particularly those designed to speed up the process of trial and to clarify and narrow the issues in dispute beforehand. I accept that the defence should be required to show the relevance of unused material that it seeks to inspect, and not to go on a fishing expedition in the hope that a defence will emerge.
Equally—this point was made by the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan—it is wrong that juries should be inconvenienced by having their consideration of trials interrupted, often for substantial periods and frequently while points of law are argued in their absence. It is surely right that, as far as is practicable, all such issues should be disposed of before a jury is sworn, as suggested in, I think, clause 34.
If greater use is to be made of pre-trial procedures, I make the plea that the judge who decides the preliminary issues should also be the judge at trial. All too frequently, particularly in London, a succession of judges deal with such preliminary points and it is highly desirable that the judge who determines such preliminary points should also be the trial judge.
On disclosure, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn quite rightly said that the problem of the burden of material must be considered. It is a question of drawing the line. It includes the equality of arms, which has been developed by the European Court of Human Rights in interpreting article 6(1) of the European convention. There is broad consensus that the balance between defence and prosecution obligations is not right, and the Bill goes a substantial way towards remedying that.
There will be a need to examine in detail each stage of the proposed new procedure, which in many ways appears to be cumbersome but which may be the best that we can devise. We should proceed with some humility, realising that the great miscarriages of justice that have tarnished our system over the past decade, and in which my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) has played such a distinguished part, arose essentially because of non-disclosure.
There will be selective disclosure, and therefore part of the task of the Committee will be to ensure that there are sufficient safeguards. For example, the investigator should be under the clear control and supervision of the prosecutor. Any prosecutor—I spent most of my professional life prosecuting—will understand that, for the majority of the police, there is a crusading element: an element of diffamation professionelle, professional defamation. The prosecutor should be able to make a more objective assessment.
I am broadly happy with the provisions in respect of defence disclosure, which are intended to clarify the issues and to save time. Again, however, certain safeguards need to be written into the Bill. I am prepared to accept the argument for a statement of the prosecution's case, and for a duty of continuous disclosure as new facts come to light. I shall not go into all the details now, but I will say that I welcome the possibility of a retrial in the event of an acquittal following jury nobbling, although I fear that the provision will not have much effect in practice. It is worth reading clause 46 in detail: it draws attention to many of the hurdles on the route to a retrial. I suspect that few, if any, will take place, but I nevertheless think it proper for such powers to exist. It offends our sense of justice that criminals can scoff at the law.
I also welcome the power to restrict the reporting of defamatory allegations in mitigation; in any event, the onus is on defence counsel not to parrot the more lurid suggestions made to him by his client, without investigation. I envisage numerous difficulties, however—not just practical difficulties related to the lack of antecedents officers, which were mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), but difficulties related to the question of who will challenge. In many instances, no one in court will be able to refer the existence of defamatory allegations to the judge, and the family involved may learn of them only after the event. We should consider whether it should be the duty of the clerk at a magistrates court, or of the judge or prosecutor in the Crown court, to stop the proceedings until the family of the victim, for instance, has had a chance to make representations. None the less, I approve of the arrangements in principle.
Let me return to an earlier point. We should be humble enough to realise that we can learn from experts in a non-controversial sphere such as this. Although many of us have experience, it may not be up to date, and it is always possible for us to learn. If the procedure is to be used at all—if the Government do not rule it out—the Bill qualifies for the establishment of a Special Standing Committee.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I shall not labour my connections with criminal proceedings, of which I think the House is aware.
I welcome the official Opposition's support for the trend of improvement set out in the Bill. I have never heard them so supportive. Perhaps our attacks on them are going home; perhaps we should attack them less, in case we are embarrassed by their support for future measures. I caution Ministers: perhaps we should temper our criticisms of the ridiculous "tough on crime, tough on the

causes of crime" slogan, lest we find ourselves in that uncomfortable position of being supported by the Opposition.

Mr. Straw: I think it fair to say that, when the Deputy Prime Minister used the words "the villain's friend", the person he had most in mind was the hon. and learned Gentleman, who defended the Krays. Let me add—although I did not wish to make this point, given our consensual approach to the Bill—that it just happens that I made speeches about the need for changes in the disclosure rules rather in advance of the Home Secretary's statement to the House in May. I spoke in early April.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I accept what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I remind him that the Krays were convicted and went to prison for a very long time. I think that acquitting them would have been an impossible job.
When I went down, with my learned leader, to say goodbye to Ronald Kray, he said, "Thank you very much, Mr. Lawrence, for what you have done for us"—30 years. He added, "We are going to keep our fingers crossed for you in Peckham"—where I was then Conservative candidate—"so that you can become Home Secretary and let us out early." I do not think I need remind the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) that I have never become Home Secretary. There is justice and sense in the system that the Conservative Government have been operating for the past 15 years.
There are two kinds of miscarriage of justice: the conviction of the innocent and the acquittal of the guilty. The Government's criminal appeals legislation has made statutory changes to reduce the incidence of the former, and a number of measures have sought to redress the latter. They comprise many of the famous 27 points mentioned by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary at the wonderful Conservative conference in October 1993. Some have required legislation; others have not.
Closed circuit television, which is being introduced all over the country, is substantially reducing the incidence of violent crime and crime as a whole—by some 60, 70 or 80 per cent. in some areas. DNA testing is also helping, as is the amendment of the right to silence. In due course, that may help to convict more guilty people.
The introduction of tape-recorded interviews has not only secured the conviction of many of the guilty, but speeded up criminal trials. Witness intimidation has been made an offence, and more police officers have been provided, better trained, equipped and led. They have now been supplemented by the security services. The police have also been given tougher stop-and-search powers. The Bill includes a number of further improvements in the effectiveness of criminal trials, which will help to reduce the number of acquittals of the guilty.
I shall not repeat the changes or their justification, because that would not add much to constructive consideration of the Bill, and we have not much time. Let me make two specific points. First, I am among the staunchest supporters of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, who have made determined efforts to turn the criminal justice system more effectively against criminals and in favour of victims and potential victims. I backed most—but not all—of the measures that we have introduced, and I back this Bill.
Let me add, however, that, as long as we retain an adversarial system—which I consider the best way of ensuring that the innocent are not convicted—we shall have to be aware, and constantly remind ourselves, that the prosecution has advantages that the defence has not. It has resource advantages, procedural advantages, time advantages and psychological advantages. The protections for the defence are very important and must never be swept away.
By all means we must amend and improve the protections. We must try to tilt the unnecessary benefits that the defence receives in favour of conviction of the guilty, but we must never let down our guard in protecting the basic rights that we have traditionally accorded to the defence in criminal trials, which are enshrined in the concept of the burden of proof.
We have done so much to reduce the unfairness and injustice against the prosecution that we may soon come to the time when we go over the edge and tilt the benefits too much in favour of the prosecution. We must certainly begin to think about checking our enthusiasms for going further down that line.
I do not think that every provision we have made is very sensible. For example, I do not think that sweeping away committal proceedings in order to be kinder to victims has helped to make our justice system more effective. It just means that bad cases get stopped at a later and more expensive stage in the proceedings.
I am not sure that having a state-funded duty solicitor at every stage after a person has been arrested improves justice very much. It just imposes a much greater cost on justice, because many accused people who would have found a solicitor privately for at least the early stages of the proceedings now find that their representation is paid, quite expensively, by the state, to the substantial disadvantage of taxpayers. I think that we have been somewhat over-enthusiastic about introducing that type of change—which I doubt has been efficient and effective.
We must be careful with this Bill not to make the rules we lay down over-rigid. I very much welcome the response that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has made to the early indications that there would be a requirement that the names and addresses of all witnesses, not only in alibi cases, should be revealed to the prosecution. I welcome that change, because of the realistic fear—of which all of us who have practised in the criminal courts are aware—that the police might be able to get at witnesses and, sometimes deliberately and sometimes not deliberately, deter them from giving important evidence for the defence.
It is very easy, for example, for the police to approach potential witnesses who have previous convictions and remind them that, if they give evidence, those matters will be disclosed for all to see. That is a reason why, in the end, the defence has not been able to call the witnesses whom it might otherwise have called. The Home Secretary's response to that has been both generous and sensible, and I very much welcome it.
So, the judge must be given flexibility to consider, if he is asked, whether the circumstances of the case require the waiving of the strict rules which may, or may not, emerge from this Bill. Ultimately, the judge must be given

that type of flexibility, to protect the defence. We all have examples of how we have made pleas to the judge to make changes. Sometimes he has said, "Yes, I have the discretion to do that." Sometimes he has said, "No, I have no discretion," and the trial has continued, perhaps unfairly with regard to the matters that had been challenged.
Secondly, my right hon. and learned Friend should be aware that this Bill may have serious resource implications. There is, for example, no point in the defence revealing the details of its case if the police are not available to check up and follow through the information that they have been given. From the defence point of view, it is important—it may also be important for the prosecution—that, between the committal and the trial, the police should consider whether there is an answer to the allegation in the defence case, or whether the defence case is one which is susceptible to challenge, and the trial can be more speedily brought to an end.
It is sensible to have matters sorted out in pre-trial reviews—especially in requiring rulings on points of law, which is long overdue—but there are practical problems. The procedure will require the barrister who is to conduct the trial to be present at the pre-trial review. The trend is to require that to happen, but it may not happen. It cannot always happen at present. What would happen if the barrister who is to conduct the trial is part-heard in another case? One cannot be expected to reschedule the pre-trial hearing. Very often, the current pre-trial hearings are not very efficient and effective, for the simple reason that the barrister who will conduct the trial is not there.
What would happen if, at a later stage, a Queen's counsel is appointed who has a different view about the way in which the trial should be conducted from that of the junior who appeared at the pre-trial proceedings? If one is to get the barrister who will conduct the trial there, one will have to get him to set aside all other business—his work and his income. If banisters have to give up other work to be at the pre-trial review, it might require a substantial increase in the money that is paid in legal aid. The alternative would be conflict between the Bar and the bench when banisters do not appear.
We are here requiring, are we not, a paid activity by banisters, which will further extend the time before banisters are paid? The Bar is currently—it has been at all times that I can recollect, but it is worse now than at any other time—seething with anger and irritation at the delays before the payment of fees. Members of the Bar have to live, just like everyone else. They sometimes have poor cash flows, and they may have to wait up to a year to be paid for their cases.
The Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 has extended the waiting time. One cannot put in a fee claim—

Mr. Donald Anderson: Is this a trade union point?

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Yes; but it is one which raises resource implications.
One cannot put in a fee claim until all the proceedings are over and the person is sentenced. That matter was not taken fully into account when the Drug Trafficking Offences Act was introduced. We will therefore have to consider carefully the resource implications of changes. If one does not take a trade union point of view, there will not be many banisters left in the profession. That may be


the direction in which everyone wants to go—I do not know—but I am not sure that the system will be improved if we do away with the dual system of solicitors and barristers.
I hope that the points I have made about the Bill will be borne in mind during its passage through the House. I also hope that we may get some indications of good will from the Government about the manner in which those matters will be handled. I have explained my hesitations. I very much commend the requirement for pleas to be encouraged at pre-trial hearings, because that will speed justice in criminal cases. Provided that there is flexibility and understanding about why, in some cases, pleas are not ready for delivery, I have no doubt that it will be an improvement.
I commend the further weapon against jury nobbling, so that, where it is discovered, the guilty will not necessarily go free. That should further discourage people who may be tempted to pay dishonest people. There was a recent case of a dishonest ex-police officer who asked the family of an accused person for £25,000 in return for naming the jurors. The proposal for juvenile remands, provided there is flexibility, is very sensible, and will spare the trauma of repeat appearances in court for children. I also commend the proposal to give the judge the power to restrict reporting of false or irrelevant allegations made in mitigation proceedings.
The Bill improves the law. Not only will it honour the undertaking given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary in all his 27 points, but it will make justice more efficient—as long as we keep in mind the problems that might be posed by the legislation and do not rush helter-skelter to deprive the defence of any citizen's fundamental rights.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I am afraid that I am the fifth barrister of five speakers so far in the debate. I have practised at the Bar for the past 25 years—not exclusively but considerably, in criminal cases. After the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) I am tempted to give him 10 per cent. of my next fee in return for his eloquent, shop-steward-like efforts on behalf of the Bar, but he can do without the money, and I shall not weary the House by backing his undoubtedly correct complaint that payments, especially to young junior barristers, are too long delayed for legal aid defence work. In that context, the Government are among the worst late payers of debt.
We all have bad days. I have had a bad afternoon, because earlier I made two attempts to make a good point, and on each occasion made it badly. It is bad enough making a bad point badly, but making a good point badly is nigh unforgivable. So I should like to return to my point, which relates to part VI of the Bill.
I share the Home Secretary's view that jury and witness nobbling is extremely serious. I thought that, given his great 27-point conference speech, he was going to act toughly on it. In fact, part VI creates a procedural steeplechase for the prosecution before a case arising out of jury or witness nobbling can take place. As the Lord Chief Justice said in the other place on Second Reading, it is very important to ensure that the double jeopardy rule remains effective. It is extremely important to ensure that, wherever appropriate, people do not suffer the risk of double jeopardy on criminal charges.
However, as I meant to convey in my interventions, there may be cases in which clause 45(1)(b) cannot be satisfied because the nobbler of juror or witness will be dead as a result of the sort of gangland warfare that occurs in such cases, or will conveniently absent himself from the jurisdiction. I hope that, in his winding-up speech, the Minister will say that the Government are prepared to consider those circumstances, and examine whether tainted acquittals might not be addressed in that context. It is not a fanciful state of affairs at all.
I am a little concerned about the language used in debates on disclosure. It seems to be a fashion to have at one time more disclosure, and then for the pendulum to swing towards less disclosure. I suspect that, if we are witnessing such a swing of the pendulum, we may, as a result of efforts of people such as the redoubtable hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), see the pendulum swinging back the other way in a few years' time, towards more disclosure.
I hope that the Bill, which makes a sensible and creditable attempt to address the issue of disclosure, is not simply regarded as part of that swing of the pendulum. Rather, it would be gratifying if the House for a change produced a piece of legislation that stood the test of time and provided a continuum of rules on which sensible disclosure jurisdiction could be exercised by the courts.
I support the Bill in principle, but not the Home Secretary's rhetoric. I do not believe the Home Secretary's rhetoric that the Bill will have a significant effect on the catching of more criminals—it may or it may not. If we get the Bill right by the time it has completed all its stages, it is likely to strengthen the fairness of the trial process to both sides—the defence and the prosecution.
I am troubled when I hear adjectives such as "robust" used about judges. So far in this debate, the only references to robust judges have been premised by the assumption that robust judges make rulings in favour of the prosecution. It is my view, and certainly the experience of practitioners, that robust judges are sometimes needed to make rulings in favour of the defence, too.
Indeed, the subject, especially someone who is innocent and charged with a criminal offence—believe it or not, that happens from time to time—may be given protection by robust judges on whom he can rely for good judgment where necessary in favour of the defence. So let us not knot ourselves up in political rhetoric about important issues. We should approach the Bill on the basis that it is worth having only if it improves the investigation and the trial of criminal offences.
On improving the trial of criminal offences, I have one great disappointment about the Bill that relates to victims. I am surprised that the Government, who have had much to say about victims—much of which I support in principle—have not seen fit to include in the Bill, particularly in the part dealing with pleas in mitigation, a provision for victim statements to be made available to the court in all serious cases.
Last week, I chaired a multi-disciplinary victim support seminar in Llandrindod Wells in mid-Wales, in which it was the view of all involved—the seminar included very senior representatives of the police and the Crown Prosecution Service—that a victim's statement before each court considering a serious offence would assist the


judge in passing a just sentence. One of the points made was that a victim's statement would help the judge to assess whether the plea in mitigation put forward by the defence counsel or the defence solicitor was based on honest instructions.
We have a well-established procedure, although it is not used as much as it might be, for what are called Newton hearings. In a Newton hearing, which arises when there is a guilty plea, the judge can hold a hearing to assess the factual truth of assertions made, and in particular the basis of the guilty plea. The introduction of victim statements would enable judges to be much better informed when deciding whether a Newton hearing was necessary. So it is a disappointment that that is not included.
However, other aspects of the Bill are welcome. In dealing with issues of disclosure, I feel bound to take us back to the most fundamental question of all about criminal trials: what is a criminal trial? What is it trying to achieve? There is a common misconception that a criminal trial is some form of public inquiry—a Scott-type inquiry, perhaps, starting with a clean sheet of paper, seeking to discover the truth and occasionally finding it.
In reality, a criminal trial does not involve a search for any absolute form of truth; there is no search for the holy grail of what is true. A criminal trial is an exercise designed to decide whether the evidence produced by the prosecution is sufficient to make the jury, or the magistrate, sure that the defendant is guilty.
A criminal charge is not brought to trial unless it passes the tests set by the rules laid down in its clear published code of practice by the Crown Prosecution Service, led by the Director of Public Prosecutions. Those rules require there to be at least a 51 per cent. prospect of success, in the prosecution's assessment, before the case is brought. So, as the hon. and learned Member for Burton said, when a trial starts, the dice are, in effect, loaded against the defendant.
Although there is theoretically a presumption of innocence, in many minds there is a presumption of guilt. The danger is that the police, too, may be loaded with a presumption of guilt. The hon. Member for Sunderland, South has discovered that that occurred in at least two extremely important cases, and I know that he has been working hard on another, which the Home Secretary has so far refused to refer back to the Court of Appeal for a second time.
We must therefore try to ensure that the disclosure procedure does not, as I said earlier, swing the pendulum back to stack the odds unfairly against the defendant. However, in my experience, especially when appearing in front of the more modern type of judge rather than the lions of an earlier generation, disclosure is a pretty good idea for the defence as well as for the prosecution. The experience of those who have practised in recent years is that, if a defendant, through his lawyers, places a skeleton argument or a case summary before the judge, even before the trial starts, a clearer version of the defence is put to the jury before the trial ends.
Of course, a case statement by the defence requires a reasonable degree of disclosure by the defence. It can do no harm, provided that the rules are even-handed. The rules provided in the code of practice, which is now in

draft form and accompanies the Bill, seem fairly even-handed, but I have one concern about them that ought to worry the police.
The code of practice involves another bureaucracy, another burden of form-filling and book-keeping for police officers. It is to be hoped that there will be civilian support to enable police officers to concentrate on the investigation rather than on the disclosure provisions, which could be time-consuming. Well-organised police stations now have strong civilianised clerical support, and that will be needed to deal with a regime that I understand will apply to every case, however big or small.
Given sufficient support for the police, and given that the defence is allowed sufficient legal aid to pursue its reasonable inquiries within the disclosure regime, much of what has been provided should work. However, I have two specific misgivings about disclosure process.
The first question is: how are we to test whether the prosecutor has carried out his duty properly? It will not be possible for the defence to do that, although it may be possible for the scrutiny to be carried out by the new Criminal Cases Review Commission, when it comes into being—although it will probably take years for any case to receive such scrutiny, because it is in the nature of such cases to take a long time to come to fruition if there has been inadequate disclosure.
I therefore ask the Government what sort of audit or quality control will be carried out. Have procedures to ensure that there will be quality control already been drafted by the inspectorate of constabulary, and will they be carried out in every force and every division? It is important to be reassured that the regime will be followed properly, when the defence is in no position to examine what happens as closely as it might wish.
My second misgiving is more specific, and concerns the schedule of unused non-sensitive material. That must be sufficiently detailed to enable the accused and his advisers to make a judgment about the relevance of the material listed for their use.
We have already heard about the issues connected with pleas in mitigation. In an intervention, I referred to the fact that antecedent officers have now been removed from Crown courts. In my view, that was a seriously misguided economy. In the past, such officers, usually at least of the rank of sergeant, and sometimes inspector, were prepared to carry out inquiries.
Typically, I have known of cases in which a defendant has put forward in mitigation the claim that he has a home and a job to go to, but when that has been checked by the antecedent officer in the court, it has been found that the defendant was telling the truth about neither. Such a liaison facility no longer exists in most courts. Such inquiries are not part of the job of the probation service, nor is there any court official to carry them out. Making them is not part of the task of the CPS either. It would be welcome if the Government decided that, for the sake of the more accurate disposal of criminal trials, antecedent officers were to be restored.
The transfer of trial scheme seems unnecessarily complex, bureaucratic, costly and open to error—and it may take up more time than it saves. I hope that, even at this relatively late stage in the Bill's progress, the Government will be willing to consider proposals to redress those criticisms, which may well be valid.
Overall, the Bill seems to make some needed changes in the criminal justice system, but I hope that the Government will recognise that we must be prepared to review the changes, especially those relating to disclosure, so that, if there are signs of weakness in them, we can revisit each area on its legal merits, rather than in terms of political rhetoric.

Mr. Chris Mullin: For the first time in the debate, the moment has come to hear from someone who is not a lawyer. I say that with all due respect to my hon.—and learned—Friends on both sides of the House who are lawyers, but justice is too important to be left entirely to lawyers. I apologise for my absence earlier in the debate, but I had an appointment with a Minister that had already been rearranged four times, and I did not think that I could rearrange it again.
I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) said about the possibility of bringing the Bill before a Special Standing Committee so that we could take evidence from parties that have taken a particular interest in the issues covered by the Bill. There is a need for calm consideration of the issues, because they are rather important.
I also welcome the point made by almost everyone who has spoken—certainly by the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) and the hon. and learned Members for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) and for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). I shall put it as the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan did, by saying that it is important to err on the side of too much disclosure rather than too little. If we must make a choice, that is the choice that we should make. As the hon. and learned Member for Burton says, the prosecution has many advantages and it is important to protect the defence.
Parts I and II of the Bill deal with disclosure. In my view, the Bill should be a little more controversial. Let me say at the outset that I entirely accept that the criminal justice system should not be just a game of chance in which clever lawyers vie to outwit one another without regard to the interests of justice. Therefore, to the extent that the Bill facilitates a genuine search for truth and justice, I welcome it. I do, however, have serious reservations. I am not at all convinced that the Bill as at present drafted represents an improvement on existing case law.
I understand that the Bill has been prompted by three main considerations, and the Home Secretary referred to some of those in his speech. First, defence lawyers—particularly in fraud trials—have been demanding vast quantities of documents, much of which are said to be irrelevant to the case. Secondly, unscrupulous lawyers are said sometimes to demand details of informants and other confidential information in the hope that the Crown can be persuaded to abandon the prosecution rather than jeopardise its sources. I have no doubt that there is some basis for both of those arguments, and examples can be found—some have been given in the debate—to illustrate them. I believe, however, that those reasons have been talked up by those interested in obscuring the third, and by far the most important, reason for concern about disclosure—that the failure of the police and the Crown to disclose evidence inconvenient to their case has been a feature of most of the proven and alleged miscarriages of justice in the past 20 years.
I shall provide some examples, because we should not talk about the matter in terms of dry theory. The scale of non-disclosure in some of the cases that are now celebrated is truly staggering. In the Birmingham case, about 2,000 statements judged by the West Midlands police to be non-material disappeared. In November 1975—four months after the Birmingham defendants were sent to prison for life, and while their appeal was pending—a number of genuine members of the Birmingham IRA were arrested, at least one of whom gave the police a detailed account of the Birmingham IRA, including a number of names. He gave the police the name of a man said to be one of those who placed the bombs in the pub. This happened in November 1975—one year after the pub bombings and a few months after the trial. Special Branch compiled a long statement from the man, a precis of which did not surface until 1990, and then only because someone with access to police archives felt sufficiently strongly to send a copy to Granada Television.
Among the documents disclosed at the 1991 appeal by the Birmingham Six was a statement from a colleague of the forensic scientist Dr. Skuse, who had obtained a positive test on a swab from the hand of a passenger on the Liverpool to Belfast ferry on the same evening that five of the Birmingham Six were tested by Dr. Skuse at Chorley. The Liverpool passenger had been released after he was found to have been innocently contaminated. Had that statement been available years earlier, it would have had a significant impact on the Crown case. It was obtained in time for the trial, but was not disclosed to the defence. The Attorney-General, in a letter to me dated 17 May 1991, said:
It is most probable that an oversight or administrative error was responsible for what was undoubtedly a most unfortunate error".
I have a number of letters from the former Attorney-General—now the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—in which he talks about regrettable oversights which, he has been assured, were entirely inadvertent.
In the Guildford case, non-disclosure took place on an even more shocking scale. On 12 December 1975, four members of an IRA unit were captured at Balcombe street in central London, two of whom were interviewed the following day by Commander Jim Nevill and Detective Superintendent—now Sir—Peter Imbert. During the interview, the two IRA men admitted to bombing the King's Arms at Woolwich on 12 December 1975—one of the offences for which the Guildford Four had just been convicted.
In a further interview on 30 December, one of the men told Nevill and Imbert that four members of the Balcombe street unit had been responsible for the Woolwich explosion. Nevill and Imbert—according to their interview notes—both expressed concern at the possibility that innocent people had been convicted and an anxiety to get at the truth. Nevertheless, no further interviews took place, and no charges or further investigations followed. Solicitors acting for the four persons already convicted were not informed. The Director of Public Prosecutions was informed, but took no action.
When the Balcombe street IRA unit came to trial, not only were the two men who had given the statements not charged with the Woolwich bombing—which they had admitted to—but steps had been taken to excise from the


statements of the forensic scientists, Messrs Higgs and Lidstone, all references to connections between Woolwich, Guildford and the other offences for which the Balcombe street unit was obviously responsible.
At the Balcombe street trial, Commander Nevill told the court that he instructed Higgs to remove references to Woolwich from his statement at the instigation of the DPP. Let it not be said that it is only the police who lose inconvenient evidence—frequently in such cases it is the DPP. Detective Chief Superintendent Huckelsby was asked at what stage he had been asked to omit from his list of offences the Woolwich bombing and four others that appeared to be linked. He replied:
This was discussed following the submission of my first major report to the DPP at a conference with counsel.
Documents disclosed to the defence in the Guildford case in preparation for the 1989 appeal at which the convictions were quashed showed that one of the four, Gerry Conlon, had a cast-iron alibi all along—an alibi, incidentally, of which he knew nothing. He was not therefore in a position to request its disclosure. An alibi witness had seen Conlon asleep at the hostel at Quex road, Kilburn, at the time he was supposed to be carrying out one of the bombings many miles away. The witness's statement was properly passed by the police to the DPP, but it did not become available to the defendants for another 15 years.
I could cite many more examples. I realise that it could be said that all of these cases occurred many years ago and that everyone concerned has cleaned up their act since then. However, that is not my experience. I sat through four preparatory hearings for the final Birmingham appeal in 1991 in which Crown counsel Graham Boal tried the patience of the court with weeks of prevarication about disclosure. Nothing in Mr. Boal's demeanour suggested that the DPP had learnt any lessons from the Guildford convictions, which had been quashed two years earlier. On the contrary, I heard him repeatedly argue that the DPP would disclose to the defendants only what he considered to be relevant and only when he was ready to do so.
Non-disclosure has been a feature of many other celebrated miscarriages of justice, and some cases which are still alleged to be miscarriages of justice. In the Judith Ward case, non-disclosure was absolutely central. In the Stefan Kisko case, it was shown that he was convicted of a crime that he could not physically have committed, and it was many years before that poor man's conviction was quashed. Tomorrow, there is to be a debate on the Carl Bridgewater case, in which once again non-disclosure is a major feature. The Minister admitted during Home Office questions on 15 February that nine years had elapsed between the murder of Carl Bridgewater and the revelation that two fingerprints—so far unidentified—were found on the bicycle belonging to the murdered boy. Obviously, if that information had been available at the trial, it might have had a major impact on the outcome of the case. I am also dealing with the case of Brian Parsons, who is in prison for a murder that many people who have looked carefully at the case do not believe he had anything to do with.
The force involved in that case is the Devon and Cornwall police force, which has a good reputation—justifiably so in some respects. It behaved honourably

when clearing up the Birmingham bombings case, but in the case of Brian Parsons, which is on its own patch, it is doing everything in its power to obstruct proper access to exhibits. When people tell me that all the cases occurred a long time ago and things have changed now, I do not accept it.
If the pendulum has swung too far, as the Home Secretary and others believe, the police and prosecuting authorities have only themselves to blame. In the light of experience, it will be a long time before I accept that the good will of the Crown and the professional integrity of those involved in investigation and prosecution are a sufficient safeguard against wrongful conviction. That is the background to my approach to the Bill.
I have several specific reservations that are shared by just about everyone—including the Law Society and, I am pleased to say, Lord Runciman—who has taken a serious interest in miscarriages of justice. Those who are most enthusiastic about the disclosure aspects of the Bill are those who were among the last to realise that there was a problem with miscarriages of justice.
My first reservation is that, even with the best will in the world—and I accept that there are many investigators and Crown prosecutors of integrity—the Bill places too heavy a burden on the prosecutor. How can he or she be expected to represent the interests not only of the Crown, but of the defence, when it comes to deciding what is to be disclosed?
My second reservation is that the Bill's definition of what should be disclosed is too narrow. It describes it as any material that
in the prosecution's opinion might undermine the case".
There is a simple solution to that problem which does not involve great expense or bureaucracy: the defence should have access to material at its place of storage and it should be able to copy material that it decides is relevant. The decision should be made by the defence, not by the prosecution.
My third reservation involves the list of available material with which the prosecution is obliged to supply the defence. How much detail should it go into? It is vital that any schedule should clearly show the significance of what is available.
My fourth reservation involves what is in the public interest. It is true that that is a matter for the court to decide, but we must pay careful attention to it. The record already shows that Her Majesty's customs, the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Government have an entirely different concept of public interest than do most ordinary citizens. The Matrix Churchill case offered a rare insight into the official attitude to public interest. It is no good saying that it is ultimately a matter for the judge. We saw yesterday that the Crown was prepared to go to some lengths to outwit the judge in the Matrix Churchill case. My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) yesterday quoted a minute from a civil servant to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, which stated that the list of documents on the second public interest immunity certificate should be removed, because to retain the words
might increase the risk that the judge will call for copies of the documents.
I draw the attention of the House to a book by Mr. David Rose called "In the Name of the Law". At pages 192 to 207, he sets out examples of cases where


the Crown relied on two extreme rogues, John Banks and Graham Titley, and did everything possible to prevent the court from discovering their backgrounds in the sure knowledge that the case would collapse were the truth to emerge. That is an important point because, with the role played by MI5 in investigating serious crime, there will inevitably be more claims that material cannot be disclosed on public interest grounds. I have no doubt that public interest has been, and will continue to be, abused. Our judges will have to be extremely vigilant—nothing in the Bill must limit their discretion.
My final reservation concerns the lack of sanctions to be used when material that should have been disclosed, is not, as a result of negligence or worse. It is a feature of all proven miscarriages that no one has ever been held to account for negligent or deliberate failure to disclose, however blatant.

Ms Janet Anderson: I hope that Chris will sit down in a moment.

Mr. Mullin: I hear my hon. Friend the Whip. I will, but as the only representative of non-lawyers present, I feel that I must set out my concerns.

Mr. Alun Michael: And me.

Mr. Mullin: I am sorry—my hon. Friend, who is to reply to the debate, is also not a lawyer.
The problem of the guilty walking free is undoubtedly a serious possibility that causes considerable public concern. As I said before, however, I believe that it has been talked up with a view to distracting attention from reality. We cannot proceed on the basis that everyone involved comes to court with good will and integrity because the record shows otherwise. We must therefore ensure that the Bill contains safeguards and that the disclosure permitted is as wide as possible.

Mr. Alun Michael: It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), who has done so much to try to restore confidence in the criminal justice system by being critical of it. Those two elements are not inconsistent: those who care most about the system are prepared to be critical of it and to expose its failures. I am also proud to be following my hon. Friend as the second non-lawyer to participate in the debate, which is of importance to the general public, not just to lawyers. I sometimes think that debates in the House on criminal justice are dominated too heavily by lawyers.
Today's debate goes to the heart of the criminal justice system. It goes to the heart of two points that both Parliament and the public share as items of great concern. The first is the frustration felt when the guilty walk free or when the resources of justice are diverted into a waste of time and energy; the second is the fear that the innocent will be incarcerated. We need to cut out the massive waste of time involved in needless disclosure and the pursuit of fishing trips, as they have been described. It is right for my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South to balance that aim with the importance of ensuring that the way in which we achieve it protects the innocent and does not go too far the other way.
I am not new to such issues; during the passage of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill in 1994 I moved amendments that, had they been accepted, would have introduced a system of defence and prosecution disclosure in a balanced way. Since my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has been shadow Home Secretary, he has repeatedly reinforced the need to tackle the issue—he made specific proposals to do so in his speech on 5 April 1995.
I am not sure whether the complaints about payment made by the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) were made personally on behalf of his union, so I shall not comment on that part of his speech, but he made the one divisive contribution to the debate—perhaps with his tongue in his cheek. He has been described as the villain's friend—he should not express surprise at our support for a measure that helps justice. The Labour party's attitude is always to offer critical and constructive support for such measures. He had the grace to welcome our approach and, in the same spirit, I invite him to support Labour measures to tackle violence, the carrying of weapons, drug-related crime and stalking, and to nip things in the bud when youngsters start to offend. Those are just a few of the issues on which he—like the Home Secretary—has voted against our proposals. If he will join us in the fight against crime, we will welcome that.

Mr. Howard: Rubbish.

Mr. Michael: It is the absolute truth and no amount of circulars from Conservative central office or misleading statements made outside the House by the Home Secretary can fly in the face of evidence—contained in the record of the House, in Hansard—of the way in which we have sought to be both tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn said, the atmosphere surrounding the speeches today, including those of the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend, was not as divisive as usual; those speeches were about finding a way to resolve the two halves of the dilemma.
I believe that the Home Secretary missed the speech by the hon. and learned Member for Burton, which I have just said—I hope that the Home Secretary will listen—was the one divisive contribution. The aim of the Home Secretary, the shadow Home Secretary and others has been earnestly to deal with the issues that the Home Secretary brought before the House. I have simply balanced the contribution of the hon. and learned Member for Burton.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn emphasised the importance of process in setting standards of justice and in the public reputation of the court system. We should be aware that people feel considerable disquiet about the operation of the criminal justice system.
It is disappointing that the organisation to investigate miscarriages of justice is not yet active and effective. Tomorrow, we shall debate a case that it would be appropriate to refer to that organisation. I say that because, if we are to speed up processes and avoid the duplication and reading of excess material, we need to ensure that machinery is in place to avoid and to correct miscarriages of justice.
What sanctions will exist on the prosecution? Will the Minister agree to explore ways to strengthen the law regarding any failure to fulfil those obligations?


That argument was strongly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn. We must have a balance of duties and rights and, if we lighten the load on the prosecution, we must be able to trust the prosecution to achieve the balance. There must be a heavy punishment when that trust is breached. In Committee, we should consider the emphasis that is placed on the prosecution's responsibilities to disclose, not only when—in what laymen would understand by that term—a case would be undermined, but when doubt might be cast on a case by the evidence that is available to the prosecution.
What will the Minister's attitude be to the arguments made by my learned Friend Lord Williams of Mostyn in another place about the circulation of evidence as pornography in prison? Several cases have come to light, causing outrage, and I took the matter up some years ago. I hope that the Minister will be willing to accept, or to table, amendments in Committee. It is surely right for us to impose strict protection so that such material is not made available or circulated in prison or elsewhere. The prisoner has a right to see material that is to be used in the case against him and to discuss it with his lawyer, but that material need not be in his possession, and it need not be possible for him to circulate it in prison.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) made a valid point about clause 45. The requirement of a conviction may be an obstacle to some cases being treated properly. An addition is needed to give the court the power, if given evidence that there is a good reason why a conviction could not be sought or obtained, to consider the available evidence. It should not be too difficult to meet that point, and I hope that we may discuss that issue in Committee.
The hon. and learned Gentleman was right to emphasise the victim's interests. We are right to insist on reminding the courts that crime, especially serious crime, is a crime because of damage done to a victim or victims. I am not sure that a victim statement is the right way to proceed, especially if the responsibility for preparing the statement is pushed on to the probation service. The Government rejected a proposal that I made a couple of years ago to require the Crown Prosecution Service to consider and consult the victim before downgrading or dropping serious charges. We must find a mechanism that will properly bring the victim's needs into the centre of consideration.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), in an excellent speech, suggested a Special Standing Committee for the Bill. This is the second measure—the first was the Security Service Bill—about which it has been possible to say, "Here is a measure that is doing something worth while and sensible. Instead of arguing divisively across the Floor of the House, let us try to ensure that the Bill is better when it leaves the Chamber than when it came in, and that it succeeds in meeting the requirements of justice."
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn mentioned the important issue of pleas in mitigation being open to challenge. I have sat in magistrates courts—especially juvenile courts—and heard mitigation, after a gap for the preparation of a social inquiry report, and been bemused, having been in court on the previous occasion, because there appeared to be no relationship between the

mitigation and the events that had convinced the court that a finding of guilt was appropriate. We must tackle that anomaly.
We should heed the warnings by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South that in some cases things go wrong and innocent people are found guilty. I am especially worried after studying the case of Mr. Bernard Wilson, who was found guilty in my constituency of events arising from the involvement of a police informer in promoting the activities that led to the prosecution. The judge expressed grave concern, and I continue to feel much concern, about the way in which the Crown Prosecution Service dealt with that case. Many remaining serious issues must be tackled if we are to restore confidence in the criminal justice system.
In Committee, we shall work constructively to improve the Bill. We all want a criminal justice system that protects the innocent and ensures the conviction of the guilty. The Bill is one step along the path of reform. We need to ensure in Committee that we end up with the best possible and most balanced legislation, but the measure is long overdue, and it is only one step. We have a long journey to travel before we can claim to have restored public confidence in the criminal justice system.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): I was going to take all of the four or six minutes allocated to me to reply to some interventions, but I must start by putting part of the record straight.
I detected no divisiveness in the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence). Moreover, the debate was good natured throughout and the opening speeches by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) were paragons of virtue in cross-party consensus.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) cannot come to the Chamber and try—even in a low key, even in a quiet bluster—to restate the record of what Labour has done. Purely what he said in his introduction forces me to take about one minute of my time to place on the record some of the information that I extracted from Hansard last week, because I found some time to peruse Hansard carefully.
I went back only as far as 7 March 1983, when the House debated the prevention of terrorism Act. Labour voted against. [HON. MEMBERS: "Guilty."] In November 1983, Labour voted against the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. [HON. MEMBERS: "Guilty."] In January 1984, Labour voted against the prevention of terrorism Act. [HON. MEMBERS: "Guilty."] In February 1985, Labour voted against the prevention of terrorism Act. [HON. MEMBERS: "Guilty."] In January 1986, Labour voted against the Public Order Act. [HON. MEMBERS: "Guilty."] In February 1986 and February 1987, Labour voted against the prevention of terrorism Act. [HON. MEMBERS: "Guilty."]
Then, in January 1988, when we voted on the Criminal Justice Act, increasing the penalty for cruelty to children to 10 years, Labour voted against. [HON. MEMBERS: "Guilty."] Labour voted against the proposal to increase the maximum penalty for dealing in hard drugs to life imprisonment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Guilty."] It voted against the maximum penalty of life imprisonment for taking a


gun to a crime. [HON. MEMBERS: "Guilty."] Labour also voted against the Attorney-General's right to appeal against lenient sentences. [HON. MEMBERS: "Guilty."] Labour voted against the Government in February 1988, January 1989 and in March 1990 when the prevention of terrorism Act was renewed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Guilty."] Labour also voted against the prevention of terrorism Act in March 1991. [HON. MEMBERS: "Guilty."]
The Criminal Justice Act 1991 gave the courts the power to impose longer sentences on persistent, violent and sexual offenders. Labour voted against it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Guilty."] Labour voted against the requirement for parents to attend court proceedings with their children. [HON. MEMBERS: "Guilty."] The Act gave the courts the power to make the parents of 16 and 17-year-olds pay their children's fines. Labour voted against that and other measures in the Act. [HON. MEMBERS: "Guilty."]
For the sake of brevity, I shall move on to February 1992, when Labour voted against the prevention of terrorism Act. [HON. MEMBERS: "Guilty."] It voted against that Act again when it was renewed in 1993. [HON. MEMBERS: "Guilty."] The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994—we are now up to date—reformed the right of silence. Labour voted against it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Guilty."] It did not vote against the police stop-and-search powers, but it argued against them. Labour had no opinion about the whole Act: so it decided to abstain rather than support it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Guilty."] Labour voted against the establishment of secure training centres and against the prevention of terrorism Act in March 1995. [HON. MEMBERS: "Guilty."]

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Will the Labour party's repeat offending entitle it to the sternest of minimum sentences in the wilderness for the next 20 years?

Mr. Maclean: I have examined Labour's record on law and order and I have discovered that it has a considerable criminal record.
Of course, I welcome the Opposition's support for the Bill. I welcome also what the hon. Member for Blackburn said on television on Sunday, in supporting some of the measures suggested by my right hon. and learned Friend. I welcome his half about-turn in supporting the prevention of terrorism Act. Those actions are correct. However, because Labour has not voted against absolutely everything that we have proposed in the past few months, it does not expunge its record of voting against our proposals in the 1980s. That record speaks for itself: it is an absolute disgrace.
I refer now to some of the issues raised during the debate. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton said that judges should have discretion to waive the rules. He called for more flexibility, but he did not refer to any rules that he thought were too inflexible. He may have in mind the requirement to produce a defence statement in all Crown court cases, which was raised during debate in another place. The Government said then that the Bill lays down a clear rule because of the advantages in all cases of narrowing the issues in dispute before the trial, for which defence disclosure is essential.
The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) called for the establishment of a Special Standing Committee. I am not persuaded that the Bill meets the criteria for that procedure.

Mr. Donald Anderson: There has not been a Special Standing Committee in relation to England and Wales for 12 years. As the Home Secretary has said, the procedure was set up specifically to consider non-controversial Bills—I believe, of this nature. Given that there are no time constraints, how can the Government not accede to that request?

Mr. Maclean: We should not grab this Bill and send it to a Special Standing Committee just because the hon. Gentleman believes that it is remotely suitable and because no other Bill has been before such a Committee in 12 years. As the debate in the other place showed, there is a great deal of interest in the Bill. There has been an awful lot of consideration and scrutiny of the Government's proposals, as set out in the discussion paper. I cannot see what role a Special Standing Committee would have that was not performed by the experts in the other place. The legislation has been subject to considerable detailed scrutiny.
My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) asked how we can guard against inadvertent non-disclosure by the prosecutor. The Bill requires the prosecutor to give the accused a schedule of all material that is not sensitive. If the accused believes that material disclosed in the schedule may help the defence, he may apply to the court to obtain it.
I shall touch upon several points raised by the hon. Member for Blackburn. He referred to categories of sensitive material in the code of practice and suggested that they included material given in confidence, which he thought was a very wide-ranging definition. The code does encompass a number of categories of sensitive material, including material given to the police in confidence. However, the prosecutor, and not the police, must decide whether the material meets the test for disclosure in the Bill. If the material is sensitive and the prosecutor seeks to withhold it on public interest grounds, the court will decide the issue.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that the test for primary prosecution disclosure should be "casts doubt upon" rather than "undermines". We believe that "undermines" is the right test. It catches material that has an adverse effect on the prosecution case and should be disclosed. However, it is not so wide as to require the disclosure of anything that has no more than a small, peripheral effect. The alternative formulation would move us backwards to the current unsatisfactory disclosure test and it would put unnecessary burdens on the police. No doubt we shall debate the issue in more detail in Committee.
The hon. Gentleman inquired about prosecution disclosure only after a not guilty plea in summary trials, and he suggested that that might result in delay. We understand his concern, but we take a slightly different view. In summary-only cases, disclosure currently occurs after a not guilty plea; the Bill does not change that. In either-way cases, it will usually be clear whether the accused intends to plead guilty or not guilty. There is also the incentive of a discount in sentence for an early guilty plea, and there is a disincentive if there is no such plea. We believe that that should eliminate delay and reduce costs also.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that a breach of a code of practice by the police should lead to disciplinary or criminal proceedings. If the breach is serious and amounts to a criminal offence, a prosecution may be brought. It is correct that that should occur. In other cases, a breach may result in disciplinary proceedings under the arrangements that we are devising currently following the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994 and the new disciplinary procedures for police officers. The court may take such a breach into account if it is relevant to the proceedings.
I come to the final main point that the hon. Member for Blackburn raised—we may deal with some others in more detail in Committee. He suggested that sanctions should be imposed on the prosecution as well as on the defence, for failure to comply with the Bill's requirements. I understand his concern, but sanctions different from adverse comment, for example, will apply to the prosecution. For example, failure to make primary prosecution disclosure in the Bill will absolve the defence of its requirement to make defence disclosure. A change in the prosecution case must be notified to the accused, otherwise the court can stay the proceedings. I think that it is a good Bill.

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for referring to the points that I raised—I know that it was a long list. Can he comment on the two other main issues to which I referred: the possibility of an appeal by the prosecution against a decision by the judge to end counts on the indictment or to dismiss a case altogether before it goes to the jury; and whether the prosecutor should have a role in pleas in mitigation?

Mr. Maclean: We considered the first point carefully. We decided that we could not see a role for it and we did not include it in the Bill. No doubt the case in favour will be argued sensibly in Committee. As to the prosecutor's role in a plea in mitigation, we see some merit in the prosecutor's presenting to the court the full facts of the

case as they affect the victim. We must ensure that the effect on the victim is made known to the police. That information must then be passed to the Crown Prosecution Service, so that its prosecutors have the full facts and can ensure that the court is aware—certainly before sentencing—of the impact on the victim and can take that into consideration. While victim impact statements have a superficial attraction, there are some potential difficulties. For example, a defence counsel might want to question or cross-examine on some of the things that are said in a victim impact statement.
What matters to the law-abiding public is a criminal justice system that pays proper regard to the needs of victims and witnesses as well as defendants. The Bill is another stage in redressing the balance in our criminal justice system, which for too long has protected criminals at the public's expense. The pendulum will not swing wildly. The Bill's provisions are here to stay for some considerable time, and that should be the case.
The Bill makes improvements across the board to procedures for dealing with criminal cases. It will do much to improve public confidence in the criminal justice system. That is why it deserves the support of all hon. Members.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND INVESTIGATIONS BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 50A(1)(a),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act.—[Mr. Ottaway.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Offensive Weapons Bill (Instruction)

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope): I beg to move,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Offensive Weapons Bill that it have power to make amendments to the Bill so as to make provision about—

(a) supplying any article which has a blade or is sharply pointed to any person under the age of sixteen years, and
(b) having any such article, or any offensive weapon within the meaning of section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 or section 47 of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995, on school premises.
The Government fully support the Offensive Weapons Bill. It delivers a well-aimed blow at the growing evil of knife carrying, but we are especially concerned about the growth of that evil among young people. We want the Bill to be as effective as possible in relation to that age group. That is why the Government will introduce amendments in Committee.
First, our proposal will make it an offence for a person to sell a knife to someone under 16. It will be a defence for that person to prove that he exercised due diligence. There will be an order-making power, under which the Secretary of State for the Home Department may designate articles that are excepted from the ban. So far, it has been decided to designate small, folding pocket knives. The maximum penalty for an offence will be six months' imprisonment, a level 5 fine or both.
Secondly, the proposal will extend to schools and their grounds the offences of carrying a knife or offensive weapon. Those offences currently apply only to carriage in public. Police powers of stop and search for knives and offensive weapons will be extended to schools and their grounds. Penalties for offences committed on school grounds will be the same as those proposed for offences committed in public places—two years' imprisonment or a fine for carrying a knife, or four years' imprisonment or a fine for carrying an offensive weapon.
There is wide support for the introduction of such measures and I hope that the House will agree to the motion.

Mr. Alun Michael: I welcome the motion. It gives me the opportunity to point out the ludicrous display of the Minister of State, Home Office, with his false theatrical presentation and his Greek chorus behind him.
The motion brings into effect something that was requested in 1988 by my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) and that was called for more than once, before the Bill was introduced, by the shadow Home Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw).
Conservative Members are guilty as charged. We could give a list of items on which they are guilty as long as your arm, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Most of our proposals were introduced when the Home Secretary and his deputy were responsible for criminal justice system matters. I do not intend to delay the House with references to those proposals, because the motion is limited, which, as I can see from your expression, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you also appreciate.
The motion gives the Committee that will consider the Bill the capacity to make proposals that go wider than the private Member's Bill introduced two weeks ago. We supported that Bill. The debate on it was another of those occasions when hon. Members on both sides of the House and both Front-Bench teams were united in supporting the need for action to deal with the possession of weapons. The capacity of the Committee to make such amendments goes a stage further in dealing with the possession of weapons by people under the age of 16.
During that debate, there were calls for problems of advertising and of the sale of weapons to be dealt with. I hope that, although the matter is not covered in the limited motion, the Government have given serious consideration to regulating the advertising of weapons. During the debate, we gave examples of some disgraceful heavy weapons that are available and that are advertised in a variety of publications, and for the possession and advertising of which there can be no reason or excuse.
I hope that, when the Committee considers the Bill, we shall find that the Government have co-operated with the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), who introduced the Bill, to ensure that we can deal with the issue of advertising as well as those dealt with in the motion. We called for those developments and we shall support them.

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Cold Weather Payments (Barking and Dagenham)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wells.]

Ms Margaret Hodge: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to raise this issue, which is of enormous importance to many of my constituents who are the most vulnerable members of the local community—the elderly, the disabled, the sick and the young families living on low incomes. The debate is an excellent opportunity for the voices of those constituents to be heard, but at the same time I am horrified that it has proved necessary to call for it. The debate is not about a disagreement between me and the Government on a matter of principle, but about the way in which government works for ordinary people. It is about elderly and vulnerable constituents who have suffered unnecessary hardship because they have become the victims of absurd and bureaucratic rules and regulations.
If the Government had demonstrated one ounce of common sense in the way in which they administered their policies, this debate would not have been necessary. The debate is about practice, not policy—about reality in the real world outside, not debate in the closed world of the Chamber. If the Government had acted with humanity and compassion and shown proper flexibility in the implementation of their policies—flexibility such as they extolled yesterday in the Scott debate when looking after their narrow party interests, but which they reject today when it concerns poor elderly pensioners—today's debate would not have been necessary.
One means by which we can judge whether the Government provide the framework necessary to ensure a compassionate and humane society involves the way in which they treat elderly people. The blunt and crude way in which the cold weather payment system is implemented in my constituency provides overwhelming evidence of the Government's failure to act in that compassionate and humane way. The Government are preoccupied with the greed of the few, not the need of the many—with tax cuts for the rich, not cash benefits for the poor.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I hope that the hon. Lady will shortly come to Barking and Dagenham.

Ms Hodge: I will indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My constituents in Barking and Dagenham are suffering. The Government are fostering division in my constituency, not creating social cohesion. They will be judged on that. For the sake of my constituents, I hope that the day of judgment will come before next winter and before they have to endure yet another winter without the benefits of the emergency cold weather benefits system, when they will not dare to turn their heating on or up in order to stay healthy and keep warm.
Ten years ago, the Government introduced a national system of cold weather payments because the previous system of local office discretion was deemed to be unfair. The aim of the current scheme is to help the most vulnerable groups in society and to ensure that they are not frightened to turn up the heating in cold weather. The

intention is to provide extra money to poor and vulnerable people when the weather is extremely cold. Over the years, the scheme has been amended, but its purpose has remained unchanged. In 1991, when the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott) was the Minister responsible for the scheme and amended it in response to pressure from Opposition Members, he said:
I propose to assure eligible people that if very cold weather arrives, they can turn up their heating."—[Official Report, 14 June 1991; Vol. 192, c. 697]
If cold weather arrives, and one lives in the wrong part of Barking, that assurance is utterly worthless. If some of my constituents turn up their heating, they will have to fork out for the extra bills—which now include the Government's 8 per cent. value added tax on domestic fuel.
Eligibility for cold weather payments is triggered by the temperatures recorded by the Meteorological Office acting on behalf of the Benefits Agency. The temperature must be 0 deg C or less every day for seven consecutive days. That is a tough criterion, but it reflects the limited help that the Government will give to vulnerable groups. Only pensioners on income support, disabled people, and families on income support with a dependent child under five years of age can claim cold weather payments. We are not talking about a large group of people or about huge sums of money. Figures supplied by the Library show that last year the Government spent just over £76,000 on the scheme and that in the extremely cold winter of 1991–92 they spent £23 million.
Large numbers of vulnerable people do not receive the payments because they do not claim income support even though they may be entitled to it. Age Concern estimates that in 1991 between 22 per cent. and 23 per cent. of pensioners entitled to income support did not claim it. People with incomes even a few pence above the support threshold receive nothing.
If one lives on Lodge avenue—which has one postcode—on the Dagenham side of my constituency, eligibility for cold weather payments is triggered by temperatures taken at Stansted airport. If one lives on the Keir Hardie estate, which is on the other side of Lodge avenue and has a different postcode, eligibility is triggered by temperature readings at Heathrow airport. Quite apart from the fact that neither airport is anywhere near my constituency, there is something rather sickening about the use of airports to assess temperatures when the old, cold and poor in my constituency can only dream about flying off for a sunny break on the Costa del Sol.
This winter, constituents in Barking received cold weather payments for only one week while their neighbours on the other side of the road—who, for administrative convenience, have a different postcode—received four payments. I am talking not about different villages or constituents who live on opposite sides of a dual carriageway or motorway, but about people in neighbouring streets, whose relatives living just up the road receive cold weather payments that they themselves are denied.
The temperature at Heathrow may be slightly above that at Stansted—it is all to do with the east wind, apparently, but that makes no sense if one is old, cold and living in Barking: the weather does not change with the postcode. Even the high and mighty cannot ensure that it snows on just one side of the thin white line.
On 18 January, in response to a written question from my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond), the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security said:
Our aim for the social fund cold weather payment scheme is to have a simple network of weather stations that covers the whole country and allows automatic payments to be made quickly to those most in need. We achieve this by using weather stations chosen by the Meteorological Office which are considered representative of the postcode areas they cover, and are sophisticated and reliable enough to provide the quality of data required for the scheme.
In reply to another written question, the Minister said:
We are content that the current network of 55 weather stations used for the cold weather payment scheme … provides straightforward and effective national coverage which at the same time takes reasonable and practicable account of local conditions."—[Official Report, 18 January 1996; Vol. 269, c. 724.]
The Government have got it wrong. The Minister may say that the Government can do nothing and respond with the tired, "Yes Minister" riposte that a line must be drawn somewhere. Of course a line must be drawn somewhere, but that somewhere must make common sense. The public must understand and accept it. It must mean something, and no one in Barking accepts the current nonsense.
When the temperature dropped on one side of the road in Barking in the week from 5 December, it also dropped on the other side of the road. That did not help Mrs. Havers, who is 86 years old, hard of hearing and lives on the wrong side of the street. She survives on a paltry £71 a week and has no central heating. Ten years ago, the council took away her old boiler, so she even lost the benefit of the heat that that old-fashioned equipment gave out in her kitchen. She needed the £8.50 cold weather payment to keep warm. When the temperature dropped in the week from 21 January, that did not help Mrs. Oakes, who is Mrs. Havers' next-door neighbour and in her 70s. She lives on £65.10 a week. She has no central heating but two gas fires, yet she cannot afford to use them both. The £8.50 payment would have made all the difference to that lady—the difference between basic comfort and distressing cold.
When the temperature dropped on one side of the road in Barking in the week from 28 January, that did not help Mr. Knight, who is unemployed, desperately looking for work and has a six-month-old baby. His parents on the other side of the line received a cold weather payment but Mr. Knight, his partner and their baby, struggling to live on £75 a week, had no emergency help. They have no central heating. For them, £7 extra a week to pump up the heating from their gas fire represents 10 per cent. of their weekly income. What a way to have to bring up a baby in a modern industrial country. Is that really what the Prime Minister meant when he lectured the country about a classless society?
Another of my constituents, Mr. Bardwell, is living on income support and sickness benefit following a triple heart bypass operation. He receives a pitiful £57 a week. This winter, he has had to fork out an extra £5 to £6 every week for heating. That again is 10 per cent. of his income. It is hard enough for him to make ends meet without having to try to find that extra money, which he would receive in benefit if he lived at the other end of the same parliamentary constituency. What a farce. Is that fair? Can that be described as a commonsense approach? Is that how we want to treat our old folk, our disabled folk and our young children?
Child poverty has trebled under the Government and now those living through that poverty are being denied the meagre assistance of cold weather payments. That cannot be fair or right. The Government must think again.
According to the Government's census, my constituency has a higher percentage of families with children under five than the average for London. So if Barking misses out, more children miss out than elsewhere. In my constituency, a higher proportion of the population are pensioners than elsewhere in London. Barking also has the highest proportion of single-pensioner households. The Minister may sigh, but that is true. So if Barking misses out, more elderly people miss out than elsewhere. My constituency has the highest percentage of the population who are long-term sick and disabled in London. So if Barking misses out, more disabled people miss out than elsewhere. In Barking, we have the lowest proportion of families who enjoy the benefit of central heating. The costs to those families of heating their homes are higher than elsewhere in London. When they miss out, that costs them more.
Research undertaken by Age Concern in 1993 showed the results. It found that single-pensioner households on income support spent as much as 18 per cent. of their gross income on fuel bills, while single non-pensioner households spent a mere 5 per cent. If the elderly heat their homes, they cannot afford to eat. What a choice. Age Concern found that a third of the older people it interviewed lived in temperatures below 16 deg C, preferring food to fuel. Yet medical research suggests that the risk of respiratory infection increases sharply when temperatures drop below 16 deg. This is a typical Tory con and the health service picks up the tab for the Government's penny-pinching approach to social security.
We know that the number of deaths in winter in the United Kingdom is three times greater than those in places such as Sweden and Germany, where the winters are much more severe but the homes much warmer. I am not prepared to stand by and see that unfair and, in the end, life-threatening maltreatment of my constituents just because of a temperature difference between Stansted and Heathrow.
The unfairness is shown by some further facts that I have gleaned from the Library. In the week to 11 December, when the temperature at Stansted averaged 0 deg, at Heathrow it was just 1 deg above the trigger. The same is true for the week ending 27 January. That marginal difference of 1 deg in temperature made all the difference to the old, the disabled and the young living in Barking. They lost out on their entitlement to an essential payment that would help them to keep warm.
The whole point of the emergency payment is to ensure that the very old and the very young keep warm in cold weather. It is the Government's job to make the system work and they have plenty of options. Why cannot the temperature, for instance, be measured at every benefit office or at the local town hall or civic centre? Is it that difficult to get an accurate measurement? Why cannot the boundaries be more sensibly defined, so that at least everyone in the same borough gets treated equally? Why cannot the home energy efficiency scheme be maintained? Why cut that scheme by £31 million, when investment by the Government today would ensure affordable warmth for pensioners tomorrow? If people's homes were effectively insulated, the savings could be immense.
Why cannot the Government make greater use of forecasts of periods of cold weather, rather than the actual temperature recorded? In 1991, the right hon. Member for Chelsea stated:
The Meteorological Office can now supply daily a forecast for each of the weather stations which we use which will indicate, with sufficient accuracy, the likely average temperature over the next seven days."—[Official Report, 14 June 1991; Vol. 192, c. 697.]

Mr. Bowen Wells (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): The forecasts are used.

Ms Hodge: The hon. Member tells me—from a sedentary position—that the forecasts are used. They are not. On 24 December—Christmas eve—in the one week in which the whole of Barking qualified, only one weather station, in Dumfries, chose to use the forecast to trigger eligibility for those living in that area. Only in Dumfries could the elderly feel secure over Christmas that they would get their cold weather payment. One of the purposes of the changes to the scheme in 1991 was to provide reassurances to the vulnerable by introducing a fast-track system of eligibility and triggering through the use of forecasts.
Mrs. Havers came to my surgery last Friday. She told me, "I know those people over the avenue have had four payments. How can it be that it is colder over there than it is over here? It is crazy. We are virtually next to them. I have to have my little electric heater on all the time to stay warm." Mrs. Oakes also came to my surgery last Friday. She said, "It is so cold in my house I have to go to bed with a huge scarf wrapped around my head and wearing bed socks. I take a hot water bottle and I wrap myself up in all the blankets I have." That is not what we should be hearing from elderly people in Britain today. We are talking not just about woolly hats, but about intolerably cold homes. That is the human dimension of the bureaucratic nonsense.
Age Concern has estimated that around 8 million households cannot afford to heat their homes to adequate standards. Too many of those people live in my constituency in Barking. I urge Ministers, on behalf of my constituents, to think again. The rules are unfair and wrong. The points I have made may seem trivial to Ministers, but they are vital to the very old and the very young in my constituency who simply want to enjoy the right we all have—to keep warm in winter.

Mr. Stephen Timms: rose—

Mr. Harry Barnes: rose—

Mr. Mike Gapes: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand that the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) has permission from the hon. Lady and the Minister, but I am not aware that the same is true for the hon. Members for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) and for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms).
I must also remind hon. Members that the debate is about cold weather payments in the London borough of Barking and Dagenham.

Mr. Harry Barnes: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) on initiating the debate. If she succeeds on behalf of Barking and Dagenham, that might have a knock-on effect that would correct the situation in the rest of the country. My hon. Friend might win a minor victory that would affect only her area. For instance, it could be decided that the lowest of the two measurements from Stansted and Heathrow should be taken. The arrangements made under the scheme should be equitable in respect of distribution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barking has argued in favour of various methods of measuring temperature. Temperatures should be taken locally, so that the needs of people in local areas can be met within the rules of the system. If my hon. Friend can make any progress on those terms, the effects will be felt further afield than Barking and Dagenham. The new arrangements will have to be applied universally, thereby improving a system that operates in the most dismal fashion across vast areas of this country.
The weather seems to be improving now. It is easy for politicians to forget a problem that is over with; easy to put down some markers for future changes; and easy to be distracted by more immediate concerns. But people have been in desperate straits recently, and it is likely that some could die because of the shortcomings of the scheme in my hon. Friend's constituency. Now is the time to keep up the pressure to correct the faults in the scheme.
My hon. Friend's constituents do not need a new system just for the next time the big freeze arrives. They need retrospective provisions to ensure that they receive the three payments that they appear to have missed. They have been encouraged to put their heating on so as not to die from the cold—on the promise that some money would be forthcoming. That money has not appeared, even though people thought it reasonable to try to keep warm.
The cold weather payments scheme is limited in its scope. It applies to pensioners, disabled people and parents on income support with children under five. Possibly many other groups should be considered for inclusion. In 1994, 300 pensioners in this country died of hypothermia—not counting the deaths to which it was a contributory factor.
The payments that people receive are modest: £8.50 a week. They are made when the temperature reaches freezing point for seven consecutive days, or when it is forecast to do so. If meteorological stations are being used for this purpose, the information that they give out should be much more widely available. The problem is that people need to know where to look for the forecasts for their area. In my hon. Friend's constituency, for instance, some forecasts will apply to one airport and some to another. What are people supposed to do? In some parts of the country people may have to tune in to television stations because their temperatures are being measured miles away from where they live. There must be places nearer their homes that could more sensibly be used to determine temperatures for this purpose.
I know of a person who has spent £10 on telephone calls trying to sort out being missed out for the payments. Supposedly, once a meteorological station has issued temperature details, the payments are triggered and then


automatically made. We know, however, that the system does not work that well. Not everyone receives his entitlement. I am sure that my constituent's experience applies also to people in Barking and Dagenham, and that there are people who have never pushed hard for what they are entitled to.
The whole scheme needs looking at. Even under the current rules, the triggering arrangements and the determinations of who should be paid what are in need of serious review. The Government are very good at developing formulae that apply to the whole country but which are not tailored to particular areas. The standard spending assessment is one example; the method used for cold weather payments is another—it is crazy.
Weather stations alert the Department of Social Security, which decides on the basis of postcodes which areas should receive payments. I need not point out that postcode areas were not designed for cold weather payments. They exist for the administrative convenience of the Post Office. Some careful analysis would have to be done to show how such areas are compatible with the areas that deserve cold weather payments.
Some places are higher and more exposed than others. The "heat factor" sometimes operates in town centres, where there are surrounding buildings. It is therefore essential to measure temperatures locally so as to provide correct information.
I should love to use this opportunity to spell out the problems in Derbyshire, where the system is completely nonsensical, but I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are keen that I should relate my remarks to Barking and Dagenham. If the principles outlined in my hon. Friend's speech are adopted, I will be able to go back to Derbyshire and say that something has been achieved. I intend to elaborate at length on the nonsensical system in Derbyshire if I am lucky enough to secure an Adjournment debate on the subject.
As I have said, meteorological stations that are nowhere near the areas affected are being used. Postal districts that bear no relation to areas with differing climates are also being considered. Moreover, some of the meteorological stations are being de-manned, with the result that certain areas are transferred to other stations. Further de-manning can lead to chaos in such circumstances.
I hope that the Minister will indeed take a serious look at the points made in this debate. It is difficult to squeeze retrospective measures out of the Government to cover the problem, but I hope, at the very least, that there will be some reassessment—even under the present rules—of how areas and their temperatures are considered under the scheme. We should then progress to local temperature taking, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking.

Mr. Mike Gapes: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) on initiating the debate. Our constituencies share a local authority. Although the bulk of my constituents live in Redbridge, half of one of the wards in Goodmayes was transferred to the borough of Barking and Dagenham in April 1994. Therefore, I have constituents who live in Barking and Dagenham and I am well aware of the problems that they have experienced. I am also well aware that those problems have been experienced by those of

my constituents who are neighbours of those living in Barking and Dagenham but who live in the borough of Redbridge.
I tabled early-day motion 499, which referred specifically to the problems faced by my constituents, which are identical to those experienced by the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Barking.
Three weather stations monitor temperatures for the whole of Greater London: one is far to the south, outside London, in Gatwick airport; the second is far to the west of London, in Heathrow airport; and the third is far to the north-east of London, outside London in Stansted airport. These three airport stations are used to determine which of the London postal districts will have a temperature level assessment on any particular day.
In logic, one might assume that areas to the north-east of London would be assigned to the station north-east of London. Similarly, it might be supposed that those to the west would be assigned to the station which is to the west, and those to the south assigned to the station which is to the south. But when the Government introduced cold weather payments in 1988 they decided to present us with a puzzle.
It is interesting to assess the regulations and to read the listings of postal districts in the respective national climatological message stations for London. It is clear that the criteria are not straightforward. National climatological message station 26, which is at Gatwick airport, includes some of the Croydon CR postal districts, but not all. The station at Heathrow airport includes many postal districts, including the rest of the Croydon ones. The Heathrow station, being in the west of London, is responsible for the postcodes E1 to E18, EC1 to EC4, EN1 to EN11 and various others, including IG1 to IG11, which cover the bulk of my constituency and large parts of Barking. I should explain that my hon. Friend and I share the IG11 postcode.
Some of my constituents live in Mayesbrook road, which is on the borders of Barking and Dagenham and Ilford. Before talking about Mayesbrook road I shall refer to the Stansted weather station, which covers an area with RM postcodes. These are Romford postcodes. The station covers RM1 to RM20 as well as Colchester, Chelmsford, Southend and various other parts of Essex.
Romford is in the London borough of Havering and the relevant postcodes extend to Essex. But RM postcodes include postal districts in Barking, Dagenham and Ilford. I have constituents who have RM postcodes and are assessed by the Stansted station. I also have constituents who live a few yards away from them who have IG postcodes and are assessed by the Heathrow station.
Nos. 1 to 73 Mayesbrook road have the RM8 postcode; Nos. 75 to 143 have the IG3 postcode. Someone living at No. 73 Mayesbrook road has been eligible for four cold weather payments. Of course, if he was not eligible for income support he would not have received the payments. Theoretically, however, the payments could have been made. The person living next door, at No. 75, has an IG3 postcode: tough luck. That person was eligible for only one payment.
On the side of Mayesbrook road with even numbers, Nos. 2 to 72 are part of the RM postcode; Nos. 74 to 134 are in the IG3 postcode. It is not merely a matter of different assessments on each side of the road. Along both sides of the road people are being treated unjustly as a result of a mad bureaucratic system.
How do we deal with this madness? How do I explain the system to my constituents? I have received several letters and telephone calls querying what has happened. One of my constituents said, "My mother has received extra payments but I had a payment for only one week. My mother lives only half a mile away from me." I repeat: how can I justify the system?
Some of my constituents who live in the borough of Redbridge are treated differently from others who live in the borough. Some of my constituents live in the area of the IG3 postcode, and they are treated differently from those in RM postcode areas.
According to the list attached to the Social Fund Cold Weather Payments (General) Regulations 1988, SI 1988/1724, there are 54 climatological message stations. The list includes some stations that have disappeared. In other words, there are not quite 54 stations. We know, however, that 56 million people live in the United Kingdom. In logic and fairness there should be some relationship between the number of stations and the population, or a relationship between numbers of stations and geographic areas. I estimate that the population of Greater London and of areas beyond is about 8 million or 9 million, yet we have—this includes Barking and Dagenham—only three stations.
If an airport station is supposed to be in London, why is London City airport not used as an assessment point? It is more likely than other stations to have temperatures closer to those in the boroughs of Barking, Dagenham and Redbridge and those in the IG3 and RM postal districts. Oh, no; that is too easy. Instead, we have an absurd, nonsensical system. I look forward to the Minister's explanation. Having read "Alice in Wonderland", I look forward to hearing him try to justify the present system.
I do not want to detain the House for much longer. I merely say that I hope that this will be the last winter during which anguished constituents will come to us, write to us or telephone us to try to secure an explanation of the cold weather payments system from us, elected Members of this place. As I have said, the regulations are nonsensical. Let us hope that a system can be introduced that is fair and just to all the residents in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Barking and to all my constituents. Let us have a system that makes sense in logic and can be publicly justified. The present regulations are absurd and must be amended quickly.

Mr. Stephen Timms: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) on securing the debate, and on the powerful case she made on behalf of her constituents in both Barking and Dagenham. My constituency adjoins those of my hon. Friend and of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes). That being so, I am very familiar with the problems that they have described. I associate myself with the proposal so recently made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South, that London City airport would be an appropriate place for a weather station. I hope that the Minister will consider that suggestion.
This is an extremely serious matter. A report produced this month by that excellent organisation, Neighbourhood Energy Action, entitled "Heating Action for Older

People", reminds us that, in the winter of 1991–92, there were 33,000 cold-related premature and avoidable deaths in the United Kingdom. That is an enormous number. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barking said, it is two or three times more than the number of comparable deaths in countries such as Canada and Sweden.
It is clear that we have a serious problem with the way in which we deal with cold in this country and how it affects older people. We have not managed to resolve the problem in the same way as other countries. The present winter has been a good deal colder than that of 1991–92. It is estimated that, in the most severe weather—this estimate was made before the present winter—during a winter period, there could be up to 50,000 premature and avoidable cold-related deaths.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the high cost to the health service of treating illness caused by cold in winter. I understand that it spends about £800 million a year on treating illness caused by cold and damp housing. The failure to deal adequately with it is a costly national failure, as well as being tragic for a remarkably large number of people.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) about the narrowness of the application of the current cold weather payments scheme. Not everybody on income support in Barking and elsewhere is eligible for such payments. What about people who are not on income support?
I had a telephone call today from a widow aged 76 who had lived in the same house for 49 years. Her husband died five years ago. She is living on the savings that they had accumulated, which are dwindling. She asked, "Why should I be penalised for not being dependent on the state?" That is a hard question to answer, and it is one that many people are asking.
In a recent letter, Councillor Jim White, of Rushmoor borough council, argued that the scheme should be extended to all pensioners. There is much sympathy for that case. I take the point that was made about the narrowness of the application of the present scheme. I hope that something more generous will be introduced.
The cold weather payments scheme is part of the measures that are needed to tackle the problems caused by the cold each winter. Another part is energy conservation. My hon. Friend the Member for Barking made the point that, tragically, the Government's home energy efficiency scheme has had £31 million cut from its budget of £105 million, despite the fact that, in December 1994, we were told that about £100 million a year would be available for three years.
Such a severe cut will mean greatly increased dependence on cold weather payments in Barking and elsewhere. For example, the amount available to people over 60 who are not on benefit will be cut from £315 to £78. That will mean that less home insulation will be carried out in Barking, and that there will be greater dependence on the cold weather payments. I very much regret that.
I make a specific point to the Minister. If he cannot answer it when he replies, perhaps he will write to me. One of the criteria for the higher rate of payment under the HEES is that the person is on disability living allowance. That should be amended to include the attendance allowance, because DLA is not paid to people over 60. There may be an inconsistency in the regulations.
I understand that the HEES is to be cut further, because the money is being top-sliced to fund the new requirements on local authorities under the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995, which was piloted by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock). It is an excellent Act, but it is regrettable if it means that less will be paid for home insulation. Poorer insulation will mean greater dependence on the cold weather payments.
I was interested to learn recently of the proposed project for the Gascoigne estate in Barking, which is modelled on pilot work in my borough of Newham, where the money that has been put aside by London Electricity through its £1 per customer levy is being used, with funding under the HEES, to improve home insulation and reduce the consumption of electricity. That is welcome. It is hoped that that scheme will be adopted more widely, but there will problems, given the cuts in the overall amount that the Government are making available for the HEES. The cuts undermine the excellent training and employment opportunities that are provided, for example, by Newham Wise and Miller Pattison, network installers in my constituency.
There is much unhappiness about the scheme, as my hon. Friends demonstrated powerfully this evening, caused by narrowness, meanness and the arbitrary nature of the decisions related to it. I very much hope that the Government will be able to make changes in the light of those concerns.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Roger Evans): I hope that Ministers will always listen when Members of Parliament come up with a sound argument based on an allegation about the differential effect of a policy that has disproportionate consequences on particular constituencies. That is what Adjournment debates are for, and that is why we are here to discuss the particular problem in Barking.
The hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) strayed from the important and central task of her argument, to make wider allegations about the Government's "penny-pinching" approach. I must tell her that the Government are spending £90 billion a year on social security—the largest amount by far of any Government in British history. I also heard talk about the narrowness and meanness of approach, but, frankly, the context is so astonishingly different that her specific case is undermined by a grotesque exaggeration of the context.
In trying to formulate Government policy, the targets that we have are to provide the most effective help at the most appropriate time to the most vulnerable people. The cold weather payments scheme has been very successful indeed. Last November, for this winter we increased the sum for the seven-day period from £7 to £8.50—a substantial increase of 20 per cent.
As the amount paid each year depends on the weather, it is not surprising that last year's winter led to payments of only £76,000, as the hon. Lady said, because it was an exceptionally mild winter. This winter, we have paid out £62 million so far—whether more is paid out depends on the weather criteria being met—which means 7 million individual payments to 3 million individuals.
The particular problem in focusing the scheme comes about in this fashion. The year 1991 was the key one, when the modern scheme came into operation. There is

no mystery to the modern scheme. There is no accident in the linkage between postcodes and meteorological stations, because the regulations each year list both. It is not a question of discretion thereafter by the Government or the Benefits Agency. Parliament lays it down, and alters the list each year to some extent. I am told that the annual amendment regulations have never been prayed against to permit a debate to take place. Perhaps the system is less controversial than we might have gathered this evening.
The key factor in the 1991 change. in terms of administration and the provision of a better service, was that computerisation in the Benefits Agency had reached a point at which we could introduce an automatic payments scheme. That dispensed with the need to make a claim: when the average temperature was recorded or forecast to be below the qualifying level—0 deg C over seven consecutive days—computer scans would be carried out weekly, and everyone who met the criteria would be paid. The conditions relate not just to individuals whose qualifications depend on the scheme that we discussed earlier, but to the postcode of the area involved.
In the modern world, it is commonplace for commercial organisations to use the postcode system—which has become increasingly developed—to determine, with the help of a computer database, which groups should be targeted in one way or another. We have managed to arrive at a detailed local arrangement by using the postcode system, while linking it with the current number of meteorological stations—55.
Let me tell Opposition Members, who have made various local complaints, that the list of meteorological stations is reviewed after each winter, and it has been our practice to amend it to some extent. I stress that, on the basis of its professional judgment on climate grounds, the Meteorological Office advises Ministers on which meteorological stations, in climatic terms, can most appropriately be linked with particular postcodes. That is amended by regulations as may be.
Having received correspondence on the matter, I have slightly more sympathy for those who live in mountainous areas. When we were discussing Barking, the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) used a tremendous amount of parliamentary imagination to hint at problems in his constituency; I have no doubt that he will write to me about them at greater length.

Mr. Barnes: I am supposed to be receiving a response to letters that have already been written, and points raised in business questions, about problems in Derbyshire.

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman's letters have not reached me yet, but when they do, they will be replied to, and the particular circumstances involved will be considered.
Normally, problems with cold weather payments relating to meteorological stations concern mountainous areas in Scotland, Wales, the Pennine region or the west country, where there are climatic differences between the tops of mountains or hills and coastal stations. We amend the list each year. Complaints were made, with some force, that a community in Braemar had been the subject of unfair prejudice through being linked with Aviemore; last year, we changed that.
The problem in London is slightly more complicated than was suggested by the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes). There are four meteorological stations to


deal with the Greater London area: Heathrow to the west, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, Stansted to the north, Gatwick to the south and RAF Manston in Kent, which deals with a portion of east London—including the south bank of the Thames, a stone's throw from the constituency of the hon. Member for Barking. It is no accident that those stations tend to be airports. Traditionally, the Met Office has been provided with the service by either commercial operators or the RAF.
Ironically, this year—I suspect that it is an accident of this year's weather, which has highlighted the difficulties in London—Stansted has been triggered four times, which would provide £34; Gatwick has been triggered three times, which would provide £25.50; Manston has been triggered twice, which would provide £17; and Heathrow has been triggered once, which would provide £8.50. The problem of the constituents of the hon. Members for Barking, Ilford, South and Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) is that, in that portion of Greater London, the overlapping boundaries meet. It is frontier territory.

Ms Hodge: In fact, the circumstances are not peculiar to this year. I understand from constituents who have approached me that my predecessor, Jo Richardson, had been campaigning on this very issue for many years, drawing attention to the absurdity of the bureaucratic differences.
I understand that a mountain would make a difference. If there were a mountain in the middle of London, the weather on one side of it might well be different from that on the other side. The point is, however, that there is no mountain in Newham, Ilford, Barking or Derbyshire. All those areas experience the same amount of cold at the same time.

Mr. Evans: I hear what the hon. Lady says, but mountains are a more obvious example than Greater London. The fact remains that temperatures have been different at those four points around London.
It is possible that, on a different basis, there might have been a less favourable result for the centre of London, which tends to be warmer. The fundamental problem is administrative, however, and the Government think it important. Obviously, money can be spent on administration and the creation of more weather stations—our minds are not closed, and we review the issue each year—but I wonder whether the hon. Lady is being realistic when she asks why there cannot be a weather station at every benefit office and town hall.
I also question the hon. Lady's suggestion of boundaries based on parliamentary constituencies. I do not see why drawing a line on a simple, arbitrary, administrative basis would deal more rationally with her constituents or those of her neighbours.

Mr. Gapes: I did not suggest that every constituency should have a meteorological station; I suggested that London's City airport should be used. It is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms), as well as being close to my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge). The provision of a meteorological station there would meet the needs of people living in

east London, and would end the absurdity of parts of our boroughs being dealt with by Heathrow and other parts being dealt with by Stansted.

Mr. Evans: If the hon. Gentleman had been a little more patient, he would have heard me respond directly on that issue.
Whenever a Member of Parliament presents us with a specific proposal about a meteorological station, we are prepared to listen. I do not know—and I have no instructions immediately to hand—whether there is an appropriate meteorological station at City airport, but if there is, if the Met Office will then advise us, and if it is suitable, I will certainly consider the proposal when we review the scheme in the summer.

Ms Hodge: I do not understand why we need the whole meteorological outfit. All that is necessary is to measure the temperature: we need only a thermometer. Surely a simple system, rather than a huge bureaucratic system, would be more sensitive to real temperatures in London.

Mr. Evans: This is not a monstrous administrative or bureaucratic measure. Nowadays, everything is done electronically. The temperature is taken at 9 am and 9 pm GMT, and automatically relayed to the headquarters of the Met Office, which is, I believe, at Bracknell. I can also comfort the hon. Lady with the information that, because of the advance in technology, the cost of meteorological stations is falling. That depends, however, on the Met Office's being satisfied that the station is of a certain standard, and that the integrity of the data is sufficient.

Ms Hodge: indicated dissent.

Mr. Evans: The hon. Lady shakes her head. She says that the requirements are simple; if they can be met, I will give careful consideration to any proposals that are put to us, but I warn her that there may be a problem. If there is a meteorological station at City airport, I shall be intrigued to know whether she will want me to find out exactly what it has recorded in the past few weeks. I wait to see whether it will be better than Stansted for all her constituents. She will no doubt come back to me on that. It may well be better on that gamble—neither of us knows; whether she comes out better is another matter.
The serious and important point is that it would not be rational to follow administrative boundaries. All that would happen if we were to do that is that I would have two hon. Members sitting next to each other on opposite sides of the House, saying, "Does it really matter whether you live in this constituency or that one?" It is better to operate the system on a climatological basis, on the basis of advice from the Meteorological Office. I have heard hon. Members ask whether that was too broad-brush an approach, but it seemed to us to be much more reasonable than introducing administrative boundaries.
It would be technically feasible, with the appropriate expense and the rewriting of computer software, to alter the Benefits Agency computer to have boundaries by parish, street, borough, county or whatever other small division might be desired. However, the modern method to do such things is by postcode. That method is extant, and it is the well-established and modern way of doing it.


The difficulty is that the postal districts do not coincide with the constituency boundary of the hon. Member for Barking. Therefore, I can appreciate that the differences are particularly clear cut.
I do not want unduly to prolong this debate. I am prepared to listen to individual arguments for extra meteorological stations when we review the matter this summer. This year, because of the exceptionally bad winter, the operation of the scheme has been much more apparent, and the consequences of its operation have been more clear cut than last year, when the scheme scarcely operated at all because of a much milder winter. There is some opportunity for flexibility in this matter. Ultimately, however, Ministers will be guided by meteorological advice rather than special pleading on behalf of areas which contain constituents.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Barking had her facts right. I was a little concerned to read in Hansard—on 20 February 1996, at column 157—of her speaking about one side of Lodge avenue being covered by one station and the other side by another station. She probably did not mean Lodge avenue, but the places that are off Lodge avenue. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) said:
It does not make sense that the residents of Nos. 450 to 472 Lodge avenue have received one … payment … when the residents of Nos. 453 to 469 Lodge avenue have received four".—[Official Report, 20 February 1996; Vol. 272, c. 208.]

That is wrong. That portion of Lodge avenue—with all those numbers—is in the same postal district, and has been treated exactly the same.
I appreciate that hon. Members, very properly, wish to represent their constituents. However, the Government must have a scheme that is simple and effective, and that automatically delivers payments without a need to claim—which was the difficulty with predecessor schemes. I could go through the long history of those schemes, but, in terms of helping greater numbers of people, paying out greater amounts of money or the take-up arrangements, they were nothing like as successful as the current arrangement. That is one of the advantages of information technology, and the ability to perform computer scans based on local geographical areas and to say that the people who are within the qualifying groups can be paid automatically.
The system is effective. It pays more vulnerable people in the appropriate circumstances than anything that has existed before. As I have said more than once, we will listen to representations each year on whether specific meteorological stations are appropriate for specific postcode areas.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes past Eight o'clock.